ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Bottle Deposit Scheme

Annette Brooke: Whether he plans to introduce a bottle deposit scheme in England.

Dan Norris: Mr. Speaker, first, may I congratulate you on your election and wish you well in the years to come?
	The Government believe that resources could be more effectively used in improving current systems than in developing a parallel system for deposits on drinks packaging. For example, improved household collections and developing the "Recycle on the Go" infrastructure are likely to be more cost-effective in increasing recycling and tackling litter.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his answer. Many of us here can recall collecting bottles to gain extra pocket money, but the matter is very serious, given that the UK recycles only 35 per cent. of its plastic bottles. Other countries have much better records—Denmark, for example, has a recycling rate of 87 per cent., so the difference is staggering—and they have deposit schemes, so it cannot be impossible to operate such schemes alongside kerbside ones. I hope that he will concede that a deposit scheme could have an enormous impact on reducing litter and the damage to our countryside and to parts of our towns. I would like to ask him—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady is reaching a question mark.

Annette Brooke: I would like to ask the Minister whether he could re-examine the matter, undertaking a full cost-benefit analysis and considering what happens in other countries.

Dan Norris: First, I should point out to the hon. Lady that we have had great success in recycling packaging in the past 10 years. The figures that I have obtained show that our recycling increased from 28 to 61 per cent. between 1998 and 2008. That means that we have recycled three and a half times more aluminium, four times more plastic, three times more glass, six times more wood and half as much paper again.
	I remember taking my Corona pop bottles to collect deposits when I was a child, but we must consider the evidence on deposit schemes. In December 2008, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a report that examined the features of packaging deposit systems and the role that such systems might play in increasing recovery and recycling of single-use drinks containers—those made of plastic, aluminium, glass and so on—in the UK. The report, commissioned in consultation with stakeholders, reviewed deposit systems in four other EU member states. The report provided evidence for and against deposit schemes, but overall it supported the view that resources could be better used in other ways to encourage recycling and to tackle litter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the Minister that I am grateful to him for his generous remarks, but frankly we have made a very poor start today and we need to do a lot better?

Water Prices

Colin Breed: What recent discussions he has had with Ofwat on water prices; and if he will make a statement.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Mr. Speaker, in line with your ruling, I shall say merely that I met Ofwat on 27 April to discuss its 2009 review of water price limits.

Colin Breed: I thank the Minister for that brief response. I hope that he will be aware of the rising and continuing anger of South West Water charge payers who, even after 15 years, are still paying substantially more for their water than people in any other part of the country; that is particularly true of people in Cornwall, which is one of the poorest regions in Europe. The Government simply cannot stand by and leave everything to Ofwat. What are they going to do to address that total unfairness, which has gone on for far too long?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will tell hon. Members not only what the Government will do, but what we have done. We commissioned Anna Walker to undertake a review to examine those very issues, not only in the south-west, but across the UK. For those hon. Members who are not aware of this, I should say that the review reported its interim findings this Monday. The Government will seek to respond to that review in full when the full report is published, but we have indicated that we are aware of the particular issues in the south-west and we have to find a way to address them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will attend Anna Walker's forthcoming roadshow in the south-west.

Barry Sheerman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the word on the street is that Ofwat is weak and needs to be shaken up or changed, that the private equity owned water companies are getting away with blue murder and that consumers are getting a raw deal? When is he going to do something about Ofwat?

Huw Irranca-Davies: My goodness, I am having to deal with some challenges today, Mr. Speaker. I also hear the opinion that Ofwat is far too strong and rigorous sometimes. What I would say to reassure my hon. Friend is that this Government introduced clear, explicit social and environmental guidance and we expect that to guide what Ofwat does. It has to make its own decisions and it is an independent economic regulator, but we have to ensure that issues of social justice, affordability and so on are properly taken account of, too.

Peter Luff: Only yesterday, I passed to Ofwat a letter from the treasurer of the 1st Droitwich Spa scout group expressing concern about a likely increase in its water charges from £50 to £1,000 because of run-off charges. That will force the group to choose between a much-needed new roof for the scout hut or an increase in subs for the 60 beavers, cubs and scouts, which they could ill afford. What comfort can I give the 1st Droitwich Spa scout group?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman can give it the comfort that this Minister has met both the regulator and United Utilities and will continue to put on the pressure. It is right that the dialogue between the independent economic regulator and the water companies is the way they define how they will take their regime forward. I am clear that there should not be disproportionate impacts on groups such as community hall groups, scout associations, churches and so on. The great thing is that United Utilities has applied a moratorium in order to examine that very issue in its area. I am looking forward to learning the outcome of that shortly, because I hope that it will guide the way for future decisions.

Andrew Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that a social tariff especially for large low-income households is essential if they are not to be clobbered by huge increases under water metering, and that Ofwat is unlikely to approve such tariffs without clear and firm guidance from the Government? Will the Government issue such guidance as a matter of urgency?

Huw Irranca-Davies: My right hon. Friend will know that that is the very reason that we set up Anna Walker's review—to consider issues of affordability, social tariffs and how water metering can play a role not only in water efficiency, but in driving down costs, especially for low-income households, and measures to tackle water poverty. We need to look in the round at Anna Walker's interim report and to respond in full to her final report to deal with the very issue that my right hon. Friend raises.

Anne McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, may I add my personal congratulations?
	Why has the Minister not put in the draft Flood and Water Management Bill his response to the Cave and Walker reviews, and why is he not giving a clear sense of direction to the water industry and a clear sense that the Government are on top of those issues?

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Lady refers to the Cave review, as opposed to the Walker review, which has been out to full consultation. We said that we would respond to it in full. There is nothing that precludes the Government or the regulator from acting on what is in the Cave review: we do not have to wait for another pricing review. We have to ensure that whatever we propose in the Bill next Session deals with the important issues, including those that were raised by Pitt in his review—we said that we would act on those. We also need to deal with issues of flooding and so on, and we will get on with that.

Single Payment Scheme

Martin Linton: What recent steps his Department has taken to reduce the overall cost of the single payment scheme.

Sandra Gidley: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the operation of the single payment scheme.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Rural Payments Agency has made a year-on-year improvement in the timing of payments under the single payment scheme. For scheme year 2008, at 30 June it had paid out around £1.625 billion, representing more than 99.6 per cent. of the estimated total fund.
	The agency has been working to reduce the administrative costs of the scheme, as well as to reduce the burden on farmers. A number of initiatives to improve the process of claiming payment have been introduced, including online applications and the issuing of claim forms that are part-completed. Those initiatives ensure that the overall process is easier and quicker.

Martin Linton: Yes, but given our commitment to further reform of the common agricultural policy, is it not time to cut back the escalating cost of the single payment scheme, which is £1.6 billion in this country and £25 billion across Europe, and is expected to hit a staggering £35 billion in 2012? As well as the cost to taxpayers and consumers, is it not against the interests of young farmers if landowners are paid £100 an acre whatever they grow? Does not that just increase the threshold to get into the profession?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to reforming the system. The health check has in recent years made the system less bureaucratic and fairer. We are continuing to press in Europe for a move from pillar 1 to pillar 2, which would make it less bureaucratic and easier for young people to come into farming.

Sandra Gidley: Single farm payments are supposed to allow farmers to cope with a market that is unfair, but each payment last year cost the taxpayer £742 to administer. Some 14,645 payments of less than £400 were made, including 636 of less than £50. Will the Minister consider introducing a minimum claim value of £250 to £300, which would reduce bureaucracy without damaging hard-working family farmers?

Jim Fitzpatrick: As a result of the CAP health check, we are in the process of introducing new de minimis options. DEFRA is consulting on the new minimum of between one and five hectares. The Rural Payments Agency's performance has improved dramatically in recent years, since the great difficulties of a few years ago. For 2009, for example, the target of paying 75 per cent. of claims by value by the end of January was met on 20 January; the target of 90 per cent. by value by the end of March was met on 10 March; and 104,000 farmers have been paid, with only 400 residual claims to be sorted.

David Taylor: Some years ago, my hon. Friend—as I shall call him—the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and I were both Members of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when it was holding an inquiry into the disasters of the single farm payment. The process has improved considerably, but is the Minister aware of the problems with the rural land register, which is at the heart of the single farm payment? Some 120,000 farms in England have received their maps recently, but those maps are showing remarkable things, such as hedges and walls that were demolished or removed in the 1950s, neighbourhood land being attached to farmers' holdings and so on. What confidence can we have that the single farm payment in 2010 will be based on accurate data?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I can reassure my hon. Friend and the farming community that the mapping procedures being conducted now will not affect this year's payments. There are 28 days for farmers to respond to the maps that they have received. We have been in touch with the RPA already. I have a meeting with the RPA chief executive next week and the mapping arrangements are at the top of the agenda. I met National Farmers Union representatives at the royal Norfolk show yesterday, where they expressed their concerns about the matter— [ Interruption. ] As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) says from a sedentary position, I am wearing a Norfolk Young Farmers Club tie to demonstrate my appreciation of their generosity yesterday.
	In conclusion, there is concern about the mapping. We are aware of it, we are dealing with it and we will ensure that it will not cause problems such as those that we have seen before with the RPA.

Richard Benyon: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the register.
	I am sorry, but the Minister's answer is just not good enough. At the heart of the single payment scheme is the RPA. The RPA is sending out the wrong maps, again, to farmers and is giving them just 28 days to respond at the busiest time of the year. That shows that the RPA is still an incompetent organisation. At his meeting with the chief executive next week, will the Minister intervene to stop that process and remind the RPA that there is something called a harvest, which means that farmers are at their busiest at this time of the year and that they have to be given longer to respond to the mess?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that item will be at the top of the agenda next week. We are aware of the anxiety that it is causing. As I have said, it will not affect the payments for this year. A pilot exercise was conducted with 1,000 farms to try to ensure that the roll-out would be as efficient and accurate as possible. We need to update the maps because they are static maps and the situation is changing regularly. That process will allow us to put them online, which will make it easier for farmers in the future. We are hearing some concerns and some complaints, and the RPA is responding to the farmers who contact the agency. I will make sure that the matter is top of my agenda in the weeks ahead, because we need to ensure that we get it right.

Michael Jack: The costs of running the single farm payment scheme are but one item in DEFRA's budget. The Secretary of State has made it clear that, from 2011, his Department's budget will be reduced. Will the Minister now outline what cuts in services to the customers of DEFRA the Secretary of State's announcement entails?

Jim Fitzpatrick: Our Department, like all Government Departments, continuously reviews its budget and seeks to be as efficient as possible. There is no threat in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We will continue to examine our budget and we shall ensure that the Department runs as efficiently as possible.

Rural Economy

Danny Alexander: What his most recent assessment is of the effect of the recession on the rural economy.

Dan Norris: While the economic downturn affects both urban and rural areas, analysis of data from Government Departments and the regional development agencies suggests that there is no significant difference between urban and rural areas and that, if anything, there is slightly more success in urban communities.

Danny Alexander: The Minister will be aware that one sector that has been hit hard by both rising costs and falling demand is the hill sheep farming sector. That is reflected in the fact that in the highlands, for example, more and more farmers are taking their stock off the hills. That has a knock-on effect on one of the industries that could buck the economic trend, tourism, because of the work that hill farmers do to maintain and support the countryside as a whole. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there is greater support for the hill sheep farming sector over the coming years of recession, to maintain the benefits that it brings to the wider community and the wider economy?

Dan Norris: The upland entry scheme that we are about to introduce has been widely welcomed, and I hope that, when he sees the details, the hon. Gentleman will find some comfort in that. However, we fully understand and recognise that it is a serious issue, and we continually redouble our efforts to make sure that such matters are addressed properly.

Nick Herbert: May I add my own congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker?
	It appears that the recession is already taking its toll on DEFRA, which has had its budget cut by £200 million since the pre-Budget report. Will the Minister confirm to rural communities that DEFRA's budget is frozen for the next three years—what the Prime Minister would call a "zero per cent. rise"—which means that it will be cut in real terms?

Dan Norris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, but the figures have been published and he is obviously capable of accessing and reading that information for himself.

Nick Herbert: Why does the Minister not at least have the courage to repeat what the Secretary of State admitted on "Any Questions?" last week, when he said that the DEFRA budget was "going to be less"? Rural communities are being hit hard in the recession and they want the truth about what lies ahead. Rising unemployment and debt interest mean that the Government's own plans show spending cuts of at least 7 per cent. in every Department. Why will the Minister not be straight with rural people and admit that DEFRA is already making cuts and that, because of the Government's mismanagement of the economy, spending will have to be cut even more?

Dan Norris: I am not going to take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman about this. Let us be clear: if the Conservatives were in the government now, they would be cutting the figures immediately. We are looking very carefully at efficiency, because it is very important that we deliver value for money. We must make sure that what we do is not just good quality, but cost-effective and bears in mind the council tax payer and taxpayers.

Dairy Farmers of Britain

Ben Wallace: What discussions he has had with representatives of Dairy Farmers of Britain since it was taken into receivership.

Hilary Benn: May I take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) to the DEFRA ministerial team? As we have heard already this morning, they are making a great impact.
	I and my ministerial colleagues have been working with the Dairy Farmers of Britain members council, the receiver, Dairy UK, farm unions, banks, and charity and benevolent organisations to continue to help all those affected.

Ben Wallace: Many Dairy Farmers of Britain producers in Lancashire and Cumbria are suffering because of the collapse of their dairy business and associated cash-flow problems. Will the Secretary of State consider extending meeting the requirements of the nitrates directive by perhaps one year? Will he also consider bringing forward some of the single farm payment due in the autumn for affected farmers to alleviate some of their cash-flow problems?

Hilary Benn: I am only too well aware of the difficulties that farmers have faced, but let me take the opportunity to give the House the very latest information. Of the 1,813 farmers with Dairy Farmers of Britain on 3 June, 1,759 have found other buyers for their milk, 45 have retired or are in the process of retiring and nine have not yet decided. Given where we were on 3 June, that is considerable progress.
	To respond to the two points that the hon. Gentleman raised, in theory it would be possible to try and advance single farm payments, but that might have a knock-on effect on other farmers. On the RPA, I have said throughout that the one thing that I am not prepared to do is jeopardise the recovery that my hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to. Secondly, we cannot delay the requirements on nitrate vulnerable zones further, but I remind the House that the new requirements on slurry storage do not have to come in until 2012.

Jane Kennedy: What a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
	May I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to pass on my welcome to my two colleagues who have joined him on the Front Bench? Food and food production are far too important to be left entirely to the advocacy of Members with rural constituencies. They are of importance to everyone.
	I noted my right hon. Friend's response to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace). Will he consider approaching the Office of Fair Trading and pressing it for its view on what is competitive in the dairy market? That would allow it to take a more pragmatic approach when mergers and changes happen in the co-operative sector.

Hilary Benn: First, may I say that it is very good to see my right hon. Friend in her new place?  [ Interruption. ] At the last Question Time, I expressed my sorrow at her departure. To make it clear, I refer to the fact that she continues to take an interest in DEFRA matters. I thoroughly welcome that, and I thank her for her efforts in relation to Dairy Farmers of Britain.
	On the role of the Office of Fair Trading, as my right hon. Friend will be well aware, a merger was proposed last year between two of the co-operatives, but it did not come off, not because of problems with the OFT, but because the two partners were not able to reach agreement. However, I will reflect on the point that she rightly makes.

Adam Price: When Parmalat went into administration in 2004, the Italian Government provided emergency compensation to the thousands of Italian dairy farmers who were affected and the European Union agreed to waive state aid rules. Why do the British Government not provide similar support now to the thousands of British dairy farmers affected by the collapse of DFOB?

Hilary Benn: The most important thing that we have done, as I have just informed the House, is work with all the partners to try to ensure that farmers can find other buyers for their milk. Considerable progress has been made, although one should acknowledge the position of workers in the creameries and dairies that have not been able to be bought by others. The dairy industry is facing longer-term problems because of the difficulties in the world market. Through the dairy supply chain forum, which we established in 2003, we are working with the sector to look ahead. There is over-supply at the moment, but the longer-term prospects are slightly brighter.

David Drew: The most important issue for most farmers is, of course, the lack of the milk cheque. Will my right hon. Friend at least talk to PricewaterhouseCoopers about the fact that, although some people obviously knew how desperate the state of the company was, milk was supplied and has been purchased by various outlets? Is it not right that those outlets pay the farmers for the milk that they have received and that PWC ensures that that is done as a matter of urgency?

Hilary Benn: If others have contractual obligations, it is clearly very important that they are met, but we have made further progress in the past week or so because of Milk Link's offer to purchase the rest of the milk—milk that had not been bought by other buyers—at a price of 18.45p a litre, as opposed to the 10p a litre that the receiver was offering.

Tim Farron: The Milk Marketing Board was scrapped under the Conservative Government and its successor, Milk Marque, was broken up under this Government, all in the name of free and fair trade, yet dairy farmers are now receiving as little as 10p a litre for their milk in the aftermath of the break-up of Dairy Farmers of Britain. I wonder to what extent that constitutes a free and fair market. Will the Secretary of State undertake to do two things now? First, to prevent a disastrous loss of capacity in the dairy sector, will he underwrite the unpaid May milk cheque for Dairy Farmers of Britain? Secondly, will he intervene to prevent unfair trade by introducing a powerful food market regulator, to prevent buyers from exploiting farmers from all sectors in this unfair, unfree and unbalanced food market?

Hilary Benn: First, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer that he wants on the payment of the milk cheque. Secondly, as he will be well aware, the Competition Commission has been consulting on the idea of an ombudsman and seeking agreement with the supermarkets and others. At some point in the not-too-distant future, the commission may come back to ask the Government to form a view on that, and we will consider it very carefully at the time.
	On the dairy industry more widely, I simply say that there has been a huge increase in productivity. Although if we look back over 20 years, we see that milk production has declined a bit from about 14 billion litres to 13 billion litres, the dairy industry in Britain is much more productive than it was.

Lindsay Hoyle: The situation is very serious. I represent hundreds of farmers, who were receiving 10p a litre, which is totally unacceptable and not sustainable, when the company went into receivership. First, we need the Secretary of State to call for a full inquiry into what has happened in Dairy Farmers of Britain. Secondly, we need him to help to fund the shortfall. Why did the banks foreclose when the farmers were owed the most money and the banks could therefore receive the most from the receivership? We need a full inquiry, we need support to ensure that those farmers are compensated, and we need him to see what help he can give.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, may I mention what will be apparent: questions are fast becoming threesomes and some trimming is required?

Hilary Benn: To be honest, I am not sure that an inquiry is required. Dairy Farmers of Britain had problems and in the end, despite the efforts of the members, it was not capable of being saved. I agree with my hon. Friend that receiving 10p a litre is impossible for farmers, and that is why Milk Link's offer to all the remaining farmers to buy at an average of 18.45p a litre is to be welcomed.

Common Agricultural Policy

Peter Bone: What recent discussions he has had at EU level on reform of the common agricultural policy.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The common agricultural policy was one of the issues discussed at the last EU Agriculture Council that I attended, which was in Luxembourg on 22 and 24 June, during the Czech presidency. I look forward to continuing discussions under the Swedish presidency in the second half of the year.

Peter Bone: In December 2005, Tony Blair surrendered the British rebate, which Mrs. Thatcher negotiated, on the false promise that the CAP budget would be slashed. Last year, the UK paid £3 billion to the EU; next year, it will pay £6.5 billion. How many teachers, police officers and nurses will have to be cut to pay for that?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The health check that I mentioned earlier provided much of what the UK wanted. Negotiations on the future are already under way informally, as was evidenced by the discussions that took place in Luxembourg last week. We are intent on making sure that we can reform the common agricultural policy to the benefit of Britain and British farmers, and to the benefit of Europe, and we continue with that policy.

Brian Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend please assure the House that when he sees his European colleagues, he will get them to recognise that security of food supply requires a premium? That is not merely a handout for farmers; it is to allow farmers to work towards supplying us with our food. We should never slash and burn it, or run away from supporting our farmers in this country, as the Conservative party would.

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are intent on making sure that the reforms to the CAP are in the direction of travel that he wants us to take. We had discussions last week that will clearly lead to intense negotiations in the months and couple of years ahead on the next round of the CAP and the next round of the European budget. There may be a new Agriculture Commissioner later this year, and the Lisbon treaty may have an impact on how the negotiations proceed in the years ahead. There is a lot going on in the background and we are intent on protecting British interests.

James Paice: Very recently, the Secretary of State persuaded the rest of the EU to allow him to keep set-aside. It is widely rumoured that he will announce at the royal show next week that he will accept the voluntary approach. If he does, we will support him, as that would be the right decision. Does he agree that the success of the voluntary approach should not be measured simply by what area of land is taken out of production? The objective is to improve biodiversity. Will he reject the simplistic arguments made by some organisations in favour of setting targets on the area of land, and will he instead set targets on indicator species of birds, animals and invertebrates? That is the only way to really tell whether we are improving biodiversity.

Jim Fitzpatrick: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the conclusions and will make an announcement shortly, as has been trailed. Clearly, the issues are complex, as the hon. Gentleman has outlined. He knows better than I that whatever decisions are made to improve biodiversity and the ability of species to prosper, it will take some years to be able to demonstrate that that has happened. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking all those complex matters into consideration and will make a statement shortly.

Economic Downturn

Jim Cunningham: What steps his Department has taken to assist farmers and the agricultural industry during the economic downturn.

Hilary Benn: In difficult times, agriculture overall is doing well. Farming incomes increased by 36 per cent. in real terms last year and there was a record wheat harvest. The UK exported £12 billion-worth of food and drink in 2007. However, some sectors are facing difficulties and farmers have been able to benefit from the help that the Government are giving to all businesses.

Jim Cunningham: What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that, in the economic downturn, agricultural workers receive proper training?

Hilary Benn: In April I convened a meeting of all those who have an interest in skills in the industry, and the industry has undertaken to come back to us with its plan. We are providing support through Fresh Start, funding for new businesses in rural areas, Train to Gain, apprenticeships, and of course the new land-based diploma for 14 to 19-year-olds, which will be available from this September.

Roger Williams: These are difficult times and some farmers with land in my constituency have not received their single farm payment from four years ago because of the difficulty in ensuring that cross-border applications are properly instituted. Will the Secretary of State please respond to me if I supply details to him, so that we can obtain some relief for those farmers?

Hilary Benn: I shall very happily do that.

Exotic Animal Disease

Philip Hollobone: What proportion of the costs of dealing with exotic animal disease outbreaks will be met by farmers under his Department's cost-sharing proposals.

Hilary Benn: Proposals on how responsibilities and costs for animal health could be shared with livestock keepers in future have been the subject of a three-month consultation. Final decisions will be taken in the light of responses to the consultation.

Philip Hollobone: DEFRA assumes that in a typical year, whatever that is, the costs of coping with such outbreaks might be £134 million, of which £65 million would fall on the Government and £69 million on the industry. The Secretary of State now proposes that the industry shares half the Government's costs, effectively meaning that farmers will pay 70 per cent. of the overall bill. Are not DEFRA's estimates of the overall cost of preventing such outbreaks too high, and is not the proposed burden sharing unfair?

Hilary Benn: The figures that we published in the consultation paper were illustrative, but the fundamental principle is about whether it is right to share responsibility for taking decisions about animal disease. My view, and that of the industry, is that it is. Indeed, the industry has long argued for it. Is it then unreasonable in the circumstances to share some costs of handling disease outbreaks, as we have done with blue tongue? It is not. Indeed, it was a recommendation of Iain Anderson after the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak. It is important that we get on with the process. Indeed, Germany has had a disease levy for several years.

Dairy Industry

Robert Goodwill: What his most recent assessment is of the future prospects of the dairy industry; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The long-term prospects for the dairy sector are encouraging, and the UK is well placed to take advantage of the expected growth in global demand. The British dairy sector as a whole is fundamentally sound, and, through the dairy supply chain forum, we are providing a framework for constructive debate and information for the industry to make informed decisions about its future.

Robert Goodwill: Is the Minister aware of the particular vulnerability of small dairy farms in remote locations, such as the North York Moors national park, as the big dairies cherry-pick the accessible farms with the big herds? What does he think would be a fair price for milk to secure the future of such businesses for generations to come?

Jim Fitzpatrick: Setting the milk price is a commercial matter to be resolved through private negotiations that should take place within the parameters set down by competition law. The market must determine prices. I fully recognise, however, the different challenges that remote farms face and which the hon. Gentleman raises. They can be exacerbated by the fact that such farms tend to be smaller, as he describes, and unable to provide the quality of milk to make collection commercially viable. In the case of DFOB farmers, we have ensured that the parties involved have got together to make haulage costs more viable. That is one way in which remote farms could look after their business interests more collectively.

Robert Key: Please will the Minister listen to small dairy farmers, in particular, who will tell him that the dairy industry is far from secure in the long run? Indeed, what thinking is his Department undertaking to determine the future strategically—in terms of Britain's food supply and, in particular, its raw milk supply? The prospects are so bleak that farmers are convinced that there will be no milk production in this country within 10 or 12 years unless we do something about the matter.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and his less than optimistic description of the industry. I chaired the dairy supply chain forum 10 days ago at the Department, and the impression that I got from industry members, including farmers, National Farmers Union members, dairy supply chain representatives and retailers, was one of optimism and positivity, notwithstanding a reduction in production from 14 billion to 13 billion litres and a reduction in the number of dairy farmers over the past 12 months. The overall position for the industry, however, looked very encouraging.

Food Waste

Alison Seabeck: What estimate his Department has made of the volume of wastage of edible food arising from date stamping and food labelling practices; and if he will make a statement.

Dan Norris: The Waste and Resources Action Programme has estimated that 370,000 tonnes of food that is past its "best before" date but still probably safe to eat is thrown away by householders each year. The "best before" date is an indicator of quality rather than of food safety. I have no comparable statistics for the commercial sector.

Alison Seabeck: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box and thank him for that reply. A number of my constituents have contacted me expressing real concern about the extraordinarily high level of edible waste that disappears into dustbins. They feel that we should be able to attack the problem in a number of ways. First, individuals should ensure that they do not waste as much food; secondly, supermarkets should cut back on their three-for-two offers, which encourage over-buying; and thirdly, the food industry should buy into the labelling. What additional help will the Government offer, and when does my hon. Friend expect the Food Standards Agency review on labelling to report?

Dan Norris: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. The key thing is that energy from waste is only one part of the picture; the Government's priority is to consider waste prevention, reuse and recycling ahead of energy from waste. I do not have the specific answer to my hon. Friend's question, but I will write to her with it.

Dairy Farmers of Britain

David Jones: What recent discussions he has had with farming organisations on the taking into receivership of Dairy Farmers of Britain; and if he will make a statement.

Hilary Benn: As I said in answer to an earlier question, my ministerial colleagues and I have been working with a wide range of organisations to continue our efforts to help those affected.

David Jones: In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), the Secretary of State said that he saw no need for an inquiry into the failure of Dairy Farmers of Britain. However, last August the co-operative issued an annual report that by any standards contained a preposterously over-optimistic assessment of its future. Given that so many farmers have lost so much money already and stand to lose even more, will the Secretary of State confirm that when he or his ministerial colleagues are considering the failure of the co-operative, they will take into account the actions of the directors who authorised that annual report?

Hilary Benn: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern on behalf of the farmer members. For some while, it has been no secret that Dairy Farmers of Britain was in difficulty; the House is well aware of that. Ultimately, of course, the directors are responsible to the members of the company. For reasons that the House will understand, we have been concentrating our efforts on trying to help those affected. The single most important step that we can take is to try to find alternative buyers for their milk.

Marine Conservation

Linda Riordan: If he will seek discussions with his US counterpart on UK-US co-operation on marine conservation worldwide.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Dr. Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US, when he visited the United States in May 2009. They discussed the UK marine strategy and the impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems.

Linda Riordan: I welcome the Government's close dialogue with the new US Administration on all things marine. However, does the Minister agree that, given the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, common fisheries policy reform and so on, we are increasingly becoming a leading reformer on marine fisheries issues globally?

Huw Irranca-Davies: It is an important agenda, and it is rising both in the public mood and among politicians. We need to consider how we bring marine and fisheries issues together within CFP reform, take a long-term view, base decisions on the science and better equip regional management. Furthermore, we are considering the Marine and Coastal Access Bill at the moment in Committee. The agenda is rising, and the Government are committed to playing a leading role in it, domestically and globally.

Bill Wiggin: I am pleased to hear that the Minister takes the issue seriously; anyone who has read Charles Clover's excellent book "The End of the Line", or seen the film, will know that we have to hurry to make sure that we preserve our marine species. Monaco represents the Government's next opportunity to fight to make sure that the bluefin tuna gets a convention on international trade in endangered species listing, and that the EU does not put together some cosy deal cooked up by southern states, thus splitting our strong and important sense that the species should be preserved.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I have seen Charles Clover's film and I have read his book—in fact, I met him the day before yesterday.  [Interruption.] I have the T-shirt. We are as committed as any European nation to dealing with the bluefin tuna issue. We are awaiting with interest a possible proposal from Monaco and the US, and we will respond accordingly at the appropriate time. Like many other European nations, we are concerned about bluefin tuna.

Recycling

Simon Hughes: What recent discussions he has had with local authorities on waste recycling targets; and if he will make a statement.

Dan Norris: Local authorities have made great progress in increasing the rate of recycling. I am encouraged that 85 per cent. of them have chosen to include a waste target in their current local area agreements to ensure they continue to prioritise this important area. I have not had any recent discussions with local authorities about waste recycling targets. My officials regularly meet representatives of local authorities to discuss all aspects of waste management, including recycling targets.

Simon Hughes: Household recycling has certainly improved considerably, but will Ministers talk to local councils about the recycling of material in public places, particularly at transport sites—railway stations, tube stations and bus stations—where, for example, lots of newspapers, especially free newspapers, are all over the place on a regular basis? That is an issue that should be of concern both nationally and locally.

Dan Norris: I certainly agree about free newspapers, which pose a particular challenge that we take seriously. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman feels that the Government have been doing positive things in this respect, but I completely accept that we need to do even more. Recycling on the go is something that we need to be thinking hard about in the years to come.

Commercial Waste

David Chaytor: What recent representations he has received from the small business sector on arrangements for the disposal of commercial waste.

Dan Norris: Officials from my Department have been in discussion with the small business sector and a wide range of other interested parties about the management of commercial and industrial waste. Later this month I hope to publish a statement of our policy objectives for these types of waste, which will include a list of actions to help achieve those objectives.

David Chaytor: The local waste disposal site for commercial use in my constituency has been closed for refurbishment for nearly a year, which means that small businesses have to travel to larger sites in neighbouring towns where the charging regime is much more rigid. A sole trader who could previously have disposed of a small load for £5 now has to pay a minimum charge of £58 per half tonne. In the statement that the Minister is going to make later this month, will he consider the impact of rigid charging schemes, particularly the consequential increases in fly-tipping?

Dan Norris: I completely accept that there are difficulties in this regard, and we need to think carefully about them. However, there are some good examples of local authorities raising their own initiatives to deal with circumstances that are not exactly the same as those that my hon. Friend's constituents face, but are not dissimilar. I am certainly happy for his local authority people to liaise with my officers and officials in order to work out a solution to the challenge that he has brought up.

Topical Questions

Stephen Crabb: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Hilary Benn: DEFRA's responsibility is to help us all to live within our environmental means. I wish to inform the House of the appointment of Christopher Parry as chair-designate of the Marine Management Organisation, which is to be established under the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. His appointment will be for three years from the point at which the MMO is created.

Stephen Crabb: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. I was pleased to see the recent DEFRA consultation on amending the Animals Act 1971 to remove the threat of strict liability faced by responsible animal owners. That is one of the factors contributing to the crippling insurance costs now facing riding schools, disabled riding centres and livery yards. When will the Minister be in a position to give an update on the outcome of that consultation? Some of us have tried to fix this several times through private Members' Bills and ten-minute rule procedures, and it really needs the Government to sort it out once and for all.

Hilary Benn: I share the view that the hon. Gentleman expresses. He rightly draws attention to the efforts that have been made in this House, unfortunately without success, to deal with this issue. We will publish responses to the consultation as soon as we can, because I recognise the concern that there is out there about the position that people find themselves in.

Linda Gilroy: I welcome the Walker review on water metering and charging, which sets out for the first time the basis on which we can properly consider who should pay for the costs of environmental benefits such as the costly beach clean-up in the south-west. Will my right hon. Friend meet a group of colleagues from the south-west to discuss why this should be used to put right the very high prices that we have as a result of the botched Tory water privatisation?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members here today who have repeatedly led delegations to me to raise these issues. It is good to see that Anna Walker has been comprehensive in her response to those issues. The road tour in the south-west was particularly well attended by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, and I am sure that they will attend the next one. She is right that we have to address this issue, and I look forward to meeting her soon. I am sure that she will keep up the pressure on me, and on No. 10.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am keen to get through as many questions as possible, and I remind right hon. and hon. Members that topical questions in particular need to be very brief.

Peter Bone: Does the Secretary of State agree that at a time of national crisis, the European Union contribution should relate to reform of the common agricultural policy? Should we not take a lesson from the Prime Minister and increase our contribution to the EU by 0 per cent., and save £3.5 billion?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I think we covered the arrangements for the CAP and its reform earlier. We will do everything that we can to protect British interests and ensure that it is as efficient as possible.

Jim Cunningham: When was the last time that the Minister met the water regulator to discuss the high charges that people are having inflicted on them at the moment, given the state of the economy?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the economic regulator. In fact, we have met within the past few weeks. As my hon. Friend knows, the pricing review is going on. We have to ensure that the water companies deliver for the consumer and deliver environmental benefit, within our social and environmental guidance. We will continue to advocate that.

Philip Hollobone: A decade ago, there were several dozen dairy farmers in the borough of Kettering. Now, the local branch of the National Farmers Union tells me that there are just two left. The new slurry storage regulations may well be the last straw. When will the Department introduce measures that reduce the cost of dairy farming in this country?

Hilary Benn: The legislation on nitrate-vulnerable zones dates from the early 1990s, and those who took positions at the time bear responsibility for the consequences. We have to apply the legislation as it is in place. As I indicated earlier, there is a specified period for farmers to take on the requirements for additional slurry storage, and as the House will be aware, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has clarified there is access to a capital allowance for the construction of slurry stores.

David Chaytor: May we have a brief update on food labelling? I am increasingly receiving expressions of concern from my constituents about the dubious labelling of eggs and chicken. The packaging is designed to create the impression that the products are organic, free-range and produced in the UK, whereas the small print makes it clear that they are intensively farmed and imported from abroad.

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I can assure him that DEFRA is working hard on the matter. Labelling and country of origin are being examined, and we will come forward with proposals in due course.

Tony Baldry: On Monday the Prime Minister launched the White Paper "Building Britain's Future". There is no reference in that document to farming, the rural economy or recycling. With the exception of a reference to the Flood and Water Management Bill, DEFRA is completely invisible in it. Why does DEFRA not seem to appear at all in "Building Britain's Future"?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman points to the Flood and Water Management Bill, which is a really good example of our getting on with it in the light of the terrible floods that affected people in 2007. I simply say that the answers that the House has heard so far today clearly indicate a Department getting on with it and helping the farming industry to ensure that we can produce enough food.

Natascha Engel: May I press my hon. Friend the Minister of State on his earlier answer about country of origin labelling? Meat that comes from abroad is being sold under pictures of Union Jacks, which is tricking people into thinking that they are buying British when they are not. What specifically is being done to enforce honest country of origin labelling?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already pronounced that this is a nonsense situation. The matter was raised at the Agriculture Council last week in Luxembourg, and we are working as quickly as we can on it because we want exactly the same thing as she does.

Norman Baker: The Government rightly promote recycling, but is the Minister aware that Lewes district council's recycling levels have effectively been capped at 27 per cent. by East Sussex county council, which will not provide further recycling credits because it wants a waste stream to feed its incinerator? Is it not about time that East Sussex county council was pulled out of the stone age and that councils that want to recycle more, such as Lewes council, which believes it can increase recycling by 50 per cent., were allowed to get on with it?

Hilary Benn: If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me with the details of the point that he has just raised, I will happily look at them.

Jane Kennedy: May I urge my right hon. Friend to hold to his intention of responding to the consultation on the so-called replacement insecticide with a voluntary scheme that will be workable and achievable and which will demonstrate our willingness to trust the farming community, which shares our concerns about the impact of agriculture on the environment?

Hilary Benn: I will announce my decision very shortly, but as I indicated to the National Farmers Union conference this year—and as my right hon. Friend will be well aware—in the end, I do not have a fixed view about the means of achieving the goal that we all share, which was set out well by those on the Opposition Front Bench earlier. In the end, we want an effective scheme that will work and, generally speaking, if we can encourage people to take part, we will get better results.

Patrick Cormack: From his meeting with the farmers of South Staffordshire earlier this year, the Secretary of State will remember the acute concern expressed about bovine TB. Has he rethought his policy on a badger cull?

Hilary Benn: No, I have not—I believe in being straight—because the evidence from where badger culling has been tried, as reported by the independent scientific group, was clear. However, we are working with the industry through the TB eradication group. In the end, the considerable amount of money that we are putting into vaccines will, I hope, offer a better way of dealing with the disease. We are looking to start the demonstration projects next year, subject to licensing, in the six areas that are being identified now.

David Taylor: Further to the previous question, as an MP for a rural area for 12 years, I regularly contact the NFU in my area to track its concerns. Indeed, I am seeing the NFU as part of that schedule at Oaks-in-Charnwood on Monday morning. High on the agenda will be bovine TB, which is showing worrying signs of spreading towards our area and thereby posing a threat to herds, farm incomes and, potentially, health. I want to take this discussion to my local farmers, so will my right hon. Friend elaborate a little on his answer to the previous question?

Hilary Benn: In the interests of time and in keeping with the spirit of topical questions, I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend with further details. In the end, this is about doing things that will work. No one would thank us if we did things that did not work, although I understand just how difficult it is for the farmers who are affected by bovine TB. The testing programme that we have put in place is, in large part, about trying to stem the spread to other areas of the country.

Michael Jack: Further to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) asked about DEFRA's budget, could the Secretary of State tell us what informed his statement that his Department's budget would be reduced from 2011 and say when he will publish details of what that means for DEFRA and the people whom it serves?

Hilary Benn: I did not say what the right hon. Gentleman has just indicated. What I was referring to last week was the published figures—they have been out for some time, although I realise that it has taken other people a little while to see them——which show the change between 2009-10 and 2010-11. As he will be aware, there are no budget figures beyond 2010-11, because that would be the subject of a future comprehensive spending review. What we are doing, as indicated earlier by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris), is spending money efficiently. However, like him, I am a little loth to take advice from a party that would cut budgets across the piece now.

Brian Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House when Ministers last met the waste industry with a view to considering proposals to reduce the amount of packaging and waste produced, the amount of waste going to landfill and the amount going into the production of energy? If we reduce the amount going to landfill, we will have more for energy.

Hilary Benn: We meet representatives of the waste industry on a pretty regular basis. Indeed, as the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) indicated in answer to an earlier question, we have seen progress in recent years in increasing the proportion of packaging being recycled. However, my hon. Friend is correct: the other part of the equation is about trying to reduce the amount of packaging that goes on goods in the first place.

Alistair Carmichael: What steps is the Secretary of State taking to stop or at least mitigate the worst effects of the introduction of electronic sheep tagging, which will have a disastrous effect on the farmers and crofters in my constituency? NFU Scotland is seeking a face-to-face meeting with Commissioner Vassiliou. Will the Secretary of State use his office to get NFU Scotland that meeting, so that it can put its concerns straight at the heart of matter?

Hilary Benn: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have worked very hard to express the concerns of many people in the UK about the cost of electronic identification of sheep. He will also be aware of the changes that we have been able to get to the implementation of the directive under the slaughter derogation, and of the fact that the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health is looking at the idea of third-party recording, which would lift some of the burden that would otherwise fall on sheep farmers. I recently wrote to all my fellow Agriculture Ministers urging further support, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State raised the issue with the Commissioner at the recent meeting of the Agriculture Council.

Adam Price: As nationalisation is the flavour of the month, has the Secretary of State considered taking Dairy Farmers of Britain's dairies at Bridgend and Blaydon into temporary public ownership?

Hilary Benn: No, we have not. However, as I told the House last week, we indicated to the receiver that we and One NorthEast would be prepared to offer financial support to keep the Blaydon dairy open while an effort was made to find a management buy-out. Unfortunately, it was not possible to achieve that and, for that reason, the dairy closed.

Business of the House

Alan Duncan: May I invite the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming parliamentary business?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 6 July—Opposition day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "Young People in the Recession", followed by a debate entitled "ID Cards". Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion, followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill.
	Tuesday 7 July—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill (day 1).
	Wednesday 8 July—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill (day 2).
	Thursday 9 July—Motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2009, followed by motion to approve the draft Council Tax Limitation (Maximum Amounts) (England) Order 2009, followed by a topical debate, subject to be announced.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 13 July will include:
	Monday 13 July—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Political Parties and Elections Bill.
	Tuesday 14 July—Remaining stages of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [ Lords].
	Wednesday 15 July—Opposition day [16th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Thursday 16 July—Topical debate, subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on the climate change preparation for the Copenhagen conference.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 16 July will be:
	Thursday 16 July—A debate on the report from the Communities and Local Government Committee on housing and the credit crunch.

Alan Duncan: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the business, and may I also thank her for at last getting this year's draft legislative programme published? But will she explain what on earth has happened to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill? The former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), championed it on Second Reading almost exactly a month ago, and resigned three days later. Two new Ministers turned up to steer the Bill through the Committee, one of whom, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry), arrived on the first day from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and left on the last day for the Treasury. Now we learn from the draft legislative programme that there is to be a local democratic renewal consultation. Do the Government plan to run this consultation concurrently with the Bill? If so, what is the point of a Bill that precedes consultation? If not, are Ministers so ashamed of the Bill that they simply plan to junk it altogether?
	Will the right hon. and learned Lady tell us what has happened to the motion that she agreed to table to refer the question of privilege raised by the arrest of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) to the Committee on Standards and Privileges? We were led to believe that this should have happened this week or even last week. After many months, this delay is not just annoying; it is beginning to get a bit rude. Will she definitely confirm that the motion will be tabled without further delay?
	Talking about delays, may we have a statement on the time taken by Treasury Ministers to reply to Members' letters? Apparently, in some cases, it has taken six months to get a response to what are often urgent constituency cases. That is shameful incompetence. I understand that the Ministers are all very busy trying to explain to the Prime Minister that there is no more money in the kitty, but may I ask the right hon. and learned Lady to remind them that their duty is to this House, and that Members who raise the plight of their constituents with them expect a prompt and full response?
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
	"It would be wrong to have a spending review now... Because we are in the midst of a recession"—[ Official Report, 1 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 296.]
	Yet later that day, No. 10 briefed that the Prime Minister had not confirmed a delay to the spending review. It is impossible to get a straight answer from anyone in the Government. Given that the Chancellor was forced to rebut the noble Lord Mandelson's suggestion earlier this week that the autumn statement would be binned, will the right hon. and learned Lady tell us who is telling the truth and whether the Government will publish their spending plans before the next election?
	May we have an urgent debate on the plight of students from poorer families under this Government? In the Prime Minister's first week in Downing street, he said that teenagers from less well-off families would be guaranteed greater support at university. Now we learn from a written statement from the higher education Minister that the Government have totally backtracked on that pledge. Student grants are to be frozen, while tuition fees are to be increased. Is that not just a further indication that the Prime Minister is incapable of being straight with people and that his cuts in financial support will undeniably mean that poorer students will struggle to get through their degrees?
	I received a letter this morning from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Equitable Life. He says—slightly ambiguously in the manner of writing, I have to say—that there will be a statement before the House rises to update us on the progress of Sir John Chadwick, but will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that this will definitely be a full oral statement, which will allow the House the opportunity to question the Minister on the Government's plans to compensate those who have lost out? Does she appreciate that a written statement would be an insult to this House?
	Finally, may we have a statement on vandalism in this House? Indeed, may we have an inquiry into who has been regularly defacing the Dispatch Box opposite me and in front of the right hon. and learned Lady? It would appear—I can see it from here—that the culprit strikes once a week with a black felt-tipped pen, and detectives have already noted that the gravest occurrence seems to be on a Wednesday each week at around midday? Does the Leader of the House have any inkling of who the culprit might be, and is she prepared to reprimand him in the strongest possible terms?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman asked me about privilege and what happened with the office of the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). As he will remember, the House decided, following a request from the then Speaker, that a Speaker's Committee would be established to look into search powers and the arrival of police on House premises. It was decided to set up such a Committee, but not before the police action had concluded, since when the shadow Leader of the House has asked for wider questions relating to privilege and criminal proceedings to be looked at. Discussions are under way on whether a two-pronged approach, involving the Standards and Privileges Committee as well as the Speaker's Committee, may be necessary.
	I have agreed with the hon. Gentleman that we should look more widely than at questions of search and seizure and take the whole question of privilege into account. What still needs to be finalised is whether we need the two Committees to achieve that or just the one. The shadow Leader of the House rolls his eyes, but I want to get right the number of Committees—not too many or too few—to deal with these issues.
	We have agreed on the terms of reference, but we have not quite got there on the question of who should undertake the review. I hope and expect that we will get there in good time—possibly next week. With any luck, and if we can get agreement, we may not need a debate; we can just put it through on agreement, which is what I am aiming for. Sure as hell, if I put it through and get it wrong, there will be lengthy debates about it, which would be problematic. I know that the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members will co-operate fully to achieve consensus so that we will not have to debate it further.
	Of course Treasury Ministers are accountable to the House. It is important for there to be full accountability both in relation to parliamentary questions, written and oral, and in relation to letters from constituents. I know that the Deputy Leader of the House keeps a close eye on the issue of responses to questions, and I will look into the position at the Treasury.
	Incidentally, what was said about Business Ministers' reply times confused the issue of letters from the public with that of letters from Members of Parliament. Obviously all letters should be answered promptly and effectively, but Members of Parliament must have priority.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about the spending review. As he will know, we have set out the plans for all Departments' spending until April 2011. In the past, they were informed of their spending only yearly.
	As for students from poorer families, since we came to power we have made increasing access to further and higher education a massive priority, particularly in constituencies such as mine where, in some instances, no member of the student's family has taken part in it. In my constituency alone, there has been a 300 per cent. increase in the number of young people going into further and higher education. That is due to a combination of increasing investment from the public purse and increasing investment from students—they pay the money back, but only when they obtain jobs—as well as extra grants and loans. I think that our record in helping young people enter further and higher education speaks for itself, and I must point out that the Opposition have never proposed, or even supported, an increase in provision.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will update the House on Equitable Life. I cannot yet say what form the update will take, but I am in no doubt about the keen interest in the issue among constituents of Members in all parts of the House, and I shall make that clear to the Treasury.

Alan Duncan: And the vandalism?

Harriet Harman: That is not a matter for business questions.

Robert Smith: Many of our constituents rely on the services of Royal Mail, especially in rural north-east Scotland, and on the services provided by the Post Office. There has been a great deal of uncertainty and upheaval for both the Post Office and Royal Mail. We now hear that the Royal Mail Bill is finally dead, but what will the Government do to sustain the universal service and bring about the promised and much-needed reform of the regulator? Will another Bill be drafted in narrower terms to deal with the regulatory problems facing the Post Office?
	The Leader of the House said—and I want to reinforce the point—that there should be an oral statement about Equitable Life from a Treasury Minister. It is rather worrying that it is not yet clear whether that will happen.
	I am pleased that there is to be a debate on identity cards. I hope the Leader of the House will ensure that the Minister who responds to it will brief the House on just how much money has been wasted on them to date.
	I hope that the Leader of the House has had a chance to study  Hansard over the last three days. If so, she will have noted how difficult it was for Parliament to scrutinise the Parliamentary Standards Bill, and the trouble caused by the conflict with Parliament and privilege that resulted from its original drafting. Will she ensure that, when Lords amendments return to the House of Commons, there is plenty of time for them to be debated on the Floor of the House before the recess? It has not yet been announced when that will happen, but it is clear from the state in which the Bill left this House that a great many changes will need to be made in the House of Lords, and we must have time for them to be debated properly.
	We will soon have a long recess in which Parliament will not be informed of events of national and major importance. Today, there is a major troop surge in Afghanistan. Will she make sure that the House is given a full briefing before we rise on the situation in Afghanistan and developments with that troop surge?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman asks about Royal Mail. We remain concerned that there should be fairer arrangements between Royal Mail and private mail services, and about the unlevel playing field in regulation. That remains a problem, and it will need to be addressed. We are determined that the pension fund liabilities should be met. But, as the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said in the Lords yesterday,
	"market conditions have made it impossible to conclude the process to identify a partner for the Royal Mail on terms that we can be confident would secure value for the taxpayer. There is therefore no prospect in current circumstances of achieving the objectives of the Postal Services Bill." —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 222.]
	The hon. Gentleman asked about Equitable Life. There is nothing surprising about my not yet being able to tell the House about the form of a statement that will be made to the House. It would be quite unusual to announce a week or so in advance whether something will be made by way of a written or oral statement. Obviously, I will convey to the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers the strength of feeling in the House. I raised the issue with the Chancellor this morning and keep him well aware of the concerns expressed by Members on both sides each and every week.
	On ID cards, it is not a question of wasting money. Money has not been wasted on biometric passports, because the people who take out such passports have to pay for them. Public money is not wasted on biometric ID cards for foreign nationals; they are a thoroughly good thing that will help us to have secure borders. We can be clear with people that once their identity is established, they will be entitled to a visa and to come here without any problems. Airside ID cards will be proceeded with if Manchester and City airports choose to proceed on a consultative and voluntary basis, instead of the Government laying down how it should be done. We do expect that to proceed, so there will be no waste of money. If the hon. Gentleman is not clear, he can ask about it at Home Office questions next week. It is not too complicated to understand, even for him, challenged though he is on these issues. We are going ahead with the proposal on foreign nationals and his party has now, reluctantly, agreed with it. We are having biometric passports anyway and we are rolling out on a voluntary basis— [ Interruption. ] I will not repeat it, as the Speaker will rightly stop me. It is clear.
	We had a programme motion on the Parliamentary Standards Bill. It is always difficult if we have to take action to deal with an issue of public concern. If we do not conclude the Bill by the time the House rises, we will not be able to return to it until October. We should use the summer recess to set up the authority, to recruit to it and to get it up and running, so that in the autumn we will no longer set or administer our own allowances, which will be done independently. There will be further time to discuss the Bill in this House if there are further amendments.
	The hon. Gentleman makes important points about Afghanistan and I will look at the opportunities to have the discussions for which he has asked.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a list of 27 Members seeking to catch my eye and I am keen to accommodate as many as possible, so, once again, I appeal to each hon. Member to ask one brief supplementary question, and, of course, to the Leader of the House to provide us with a pithy reply.

Michael Clapham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in congratulating Katrina London, Jason Addy and Paul Glanville on undertaking the mesothelioma awareness ride? It will cover 12,000 miles from Glasgow to Southampton, and today they arrive in London. The intention, of course, is to raise awareness of mesothelioma cancer, which is caused by exposure to asbestos, and at the same time to raise funds for the victims and to support the establishment of a national centre for asbestos-related diseases. Will my right hon. and learned Friend support the setting up of that centre?

Harriet Harman: I congratulate Katrina, Jason and Paul on their mesothelioma awareness ride, and I congratulate my hon. Friend, who has probably done more than anybody in this House to raise awareness of this cruel disease, which mostly affects people through their workplace.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I take the right hon. and learned Lady back to a point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), which I fully support? The right hon. and learned Lady is meant to be the defender of this House, yet, rather shamefully, yesterday and the day before we allowed an unfinished and very untidy Bill to go through to an unelected Chamber with no further debate here at that point. As she will have seen when clause 10 was knocked out, some of us on both sides of the House were ashamed of what this House was presenting to an unelected Chamber for it to make decisions on our part. On that basis, will she ensure that when the Bill returns we do not have this guillotine, and we have one final chance to debate the measure in full with time to get it right?

Harriet Harman: I make no apologies for what I hope—and expect, and will take action to ensure—for this Bill. It sets up an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority so that our allowances are set independently rather than by ourselves, which is what the public want and expect and we all in principle agreed to. The Bill needs to be in and out of this House by the time the House rises. We listened to all the points made in the debate yesterday, and, indeed, acceded to many of them and voted on many others. The Bill was, therefore, changed as it progressed.

Kate Hoey: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for those of us who disagree with the Justice Secretary's decision to overrule the Parole Board on the Ronnie Biggs case to discuss that, given that we allowed hundreds of terrorists and murderers to go free in Northern Ireland, and we also allow murderers who have done much worse things than Ronnie Biggs to go free? The Justice Secretary overruled the Parole Board, which he could not do under today's law. Will the Leader of the House find a way for us to discuss this matter and bring it to the House's attention?

Harriet Harman: The Justice Secretary was acting in compliance with the law as it relates to people who were sentenced at the time of the Ronald Biggs case. My hon. Friend is right that the system has changed for future cases, but it has not changed for cases of that age. The Justice Secretary made his decision based on the evidence in, and facts of, the case, and on legal advice and his own judgment acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. This is not a question of policy; it is a quasi-judicial judgment in the public interest on a particular case, so I do not think it is an appropriate issue for debate in the House.

Alistair Burt: Bedford unitary council is preparing a bid for the improvement of its schools under the Building Schools for the Future programme while not knowing what the financial future of the programme will be because of the failure to provide a spending review. Crucial decisions that have to be made about the structure of schools are being made in the dark because of the absence of these figures. Will the Leader of the House use her position to convey to the Chancellor how important it is to have a spending review, so that these crucial decisions can be made in the full light of what the spending by the Department will be, as opposed to there just being empty political rhetoric about the future of schools' spending?

Harriet Harman: As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, not only has there been unprecedented investment in schools over the past 10 years, but that investment is continuing this year and next year despite the fact that his own party has said it wants to cut spending this year and next year. He will also be aware that we are bringing forward capital spending across the two-year period up to April 2011. That is not only important for schools. It is also important for the construction industry to have that injection of public investment at a time when private sector construction has ground to a halt. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman can look forward to improving schools in his constituency.

Keith Vaz: May I, with great respect, take my right hon. and learned Friend back to the question of ID cards? It is a scheme that will cost £4.9 billion, and this week the Home Secretary announced a shift in policy. Would it not have been better for the Home Secretary to have made an oral statement to the House, rather than relying on the Opposition providing some of their time to discuss what is a very important issue that requires consideration not just by a Select Committee and individual Members during Home Office questions, but by the whole House?

Harriet Harman: I have to say to my right hon. Friend, with respect—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Well, he was respectful to me, and I am returning the favour. The situation is that we are proceeding with biometric passports and with ID cards for foreign nationals. The only change, which I would not call a shift in policy, is for airside staff at two airports; instead of the Government putting a requirement on airside staff in this respect, it should be dealt with airport by airport in consultation with the people who work there and those running the airport. Therefore, the figure my right hon. Friend announced is not right at all, and we have always said that if we want to make them compulsory for people aside from foreign nationals, we will have to bring primary legislation before this House. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend can see, there is a small change in one part of the policy, but there is not a fundamental shift in the policy at all.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I rise to request a debate in this House on behalf of the farmers of Exmoor on the digital mapping system that the Rural Payments Agency uses to allocate money to farmers. The agency has got it wrong for the third year running. This is now becoming beyond a joke. Why can we not get this mapping correct? We can read papers from space, so why can we not get field outlines right? Farmers are getting sick to the back teeth of this. Please may we have a debate on it? It is a disaster across the United Kingdom, but especially in places such as Exmoor where fields are not openly defined.

Harriet Harman: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman tried to ask that question in Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, but if he was not able to be present for them I shall draw his comments to the attention of Ministers.

Gordon Prentice: My Friend told us that we can expect to have the Lords amendments to the Political Parties and Elections Bill on Monday 13 July. When will Third Reading be held in the Lords, and will the Government seek to reverse the amendment that would stop tax exiles bankrolling political parties?

Harriet Harman: When the Bill returns to this House on Monday 13 July, the Justice Secretary will set out the Government position on amendments made by the Lords.

Evan Harris: I want to thank the Leader of the House for the answer she gave me at last week's business questions, when she said my point about the scrutiny of Government Bills being House business was valid; I am grateful for that. She also said she would do two things that I asked of her. First, she said she would consult proposed members of the Wright Committee about the terms of reference before re-tabling. As I understand it, agreement has been reached, and it would be useful if she indicated when she is likely to do this. It would also be good if she could go through the motions of consulting those of us who are on the Committee, although I do not think there is a controversy. Secondly, she said she would consult people about her plans—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, who is an extremely experienced and assiduous parliamentarian, that this in danger of becoming an essay question, rather than a question?

Evan Harris: The other thing that the right hon. and learned Lady said she would do was consult on how she would handle the Report stage of the Equality Bill, to ensure that we fully debate all the matters that the House would wish to debate.

Harriet Harman: For the Wright Committee, the House will recall that we put forward terms of reference and amendments were tabled by those in all parts of the House expressing the view that those terms should be wider. As we wanted to go about this business in a consensual way, we withdrew the resolution and we have drawn up some new terms of reference that incorporate the spirit of the amendments. We will not be going through the motions of consulting those who will play an important part in this process by serving on the Committee—we will actually consult them. As with the question of privileges, I hope that we will be able to reach agreement and not need a debate on this. I am also aware that once it is established, the hon. Members on the Committee will want it to sit in September, and will want to get the work under way before the House rises, so I shall get my skates on.

Sally Keeble: I give a warm welcome to the consumer White Paper, which contains proposals on consumer credit and debt that are very important to our constituents. Can my right hon. and learned Friend understand the frustration that some of us feel at the fact that the lead Minister on this important subject is in another place? When will this House get an opportunity to question Ministers about these important proposals that affect our constituents so closely?

Harriet Harman: A written ministerial statement on that matter was tabled in the House this morning, and I thank my hon. Friend for her words of welcome. Of course, there are Ministers responsible to this House as well as Ministers responsible to the other place, so I will draw her points to their attention.

Andrew MacKay: Would the Leader of the House find it helpful to invite her Cabinet colleague the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make a statement next week about her policy on equality, bearing in mind the speech that he gave to the Fabian Society yesterday?

Harriet Harman: The Equality Bill is in Committee, and what it will do is very important indeed. It will ensure that we tackle age discrimination—discrimination against older people on the grounds of their age will be outlawed—and pay discrimination against women. It will ensure that we make progress on a range of other issues, and it will also ensure that all public authorities, be they local government authorities, health authorities or Departments, and indeed Ministers, play their part in ensuring that this country is a more fair and equal society. That Bill has the support of the whole Government, albeit not the support of the whole House. Unfortunately there is a division on the Bill— [Interruption.] It is not between those of us in the Cabinet; it is between us and the Conservatives, who declined to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Patrick Hall: In the light of the Government's welcome announcement yesterday about the National Express east coast franchise, will the Leader of the House make time for this House to debate and reflect on the many issues arising out of that decision, which I believe have relevance to the national railway network as a whole?

Harriet Harman: I know that this is an important issue for my hon. Friend and his constituents. A statement was made on it yesterday, and no doubt the House will be kept informed of any further changes.

Tony Baldry: The "Building Britain's Future" White Paper, which was published earlier this week, states in terms that
	"the Government hopes that time will also be available in each House to debate this document."
	As responses have to be in by 21 September, can the Leader of the House tell us when we will have an opportunity to debate the White Paper? We were promised such a debate in the White Paper itself. That substantive document contains a lot of detail and I hope that we will have a two-day debate on it. If not, all we shall get is, as it says,
	"Ministers...taking part in regional events".
	That would, in effect, be a pre-general election publicity stunt, with Ministers going around the country, rather than providing us with an opportunity to debate what is proposed.

Harriet Harman: The Prime Minister made an oral statement on this, and thus provided at least an opportunity for hon. Members to ask questions not only on the broader document, but on the draft legislative programme. I believe that this is the third year running that instead of keeping the Queen's Speech completely under wraps and springing it on people towards the end of the year, we have set the contents of it out so that people can join in the debate, respond and give their comments. As for discussion of the White Paper in the House, if there is anything further to be announced I shall bring it forward when we next have business questions.

Eric Martlew: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether she will find time for a debate on changing the procedures of this House? Can we have a debate on allowing Secretaries of State who are Members of the House of Lords to come to this Dispatch Box to make statements and answer questions? Yesterday, a statement was made in the House of Lords about the east coast main line and four hours later it was made in the Commons by a very able but junior Minister—that cannot be right.

Harriet Harman: The timing of that statement was dictated not only by the difference between the Lords and the Commons timing and scheduling of business on Wednesdays, but by market sensitivity and the need to say something before either the House of Lords or this House was sitting, because of market information. Obviously we try to ensure that we bring information to the House as soon as possible. This was a question of balancing the need to ensure that very important and controversial House business was not interrupted by the need to ensure that the House had an opportunity to question the transport Minister. I understand the concerns, but I do not think that there was any easy solution to the situation yesterday.

Angela Watkinson: Havering sixth-form college has received the devastating news that it will not receive any Learning and Skills Council funding for its capital project, on which it has already spent £6 million on enabling works. Could we have an urgent debate on how Havering's college and the many others up and down the country can be helped to reverse the enabling works and to be able to operate efficiently from the beginning of the autumn term?

Harriet Harman: Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have been keeping the House up to date with the concerns about the LSC's administration of issues relating to sixth-form colleges and further education colleges. Despite a substantial increase in capital investment, there has been uncertainty where there should not have been any, and some plans have been interrupted. Work is under way to ensure that we can take forward the important higher education programme as speedily as possible; no doubt that will apply to Havering college too.

Jim Sheridan: Could we have a debate on how best we can improve sporting facilities for constituents throughout the country? My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that we have just had a very successful Olympics, but many of the successful athletes were dependent on private finance and private facilities. The same can be said of Andy Murray, who had to travel abroad to develop his skills—and I am sure that the whole House wishes him every success. Although we have made progress, there remains ample room for improvement.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend will know that there has been a big increase in capital investment in sporting facilities and a big sports improvement programme in schools throughout the country and in specific sporting facilities in after-school clubs and generally in leisure centres provided by councils and others. I am sure that the whole House agrees with him about sending our best wishes and good luck to Andrew Murray.

Damian Green: I was dismayed to hear the Leader of the House say earlier that her response to the police incursion into my office without a warrant, and with the apparent connivance of the House authorities, was to continue to dither. I was cleared three months ago, and the previous Speaker said that he now wanted the Speaker's Committee provided for by a motion of the House to be set up, because he wanted to give evidence to it about what had been said to him at the time. Can she at least give us a commitment that by next week she will have come to a conclusion about this matter? Frankly, this delay is disgraceful for this House.

Harriet Harman: I can say to the hon. Gentleman that there would not have been a delay but for the fact that his hon. Friend, the shadow Leader of the House, asked me to include some extra issues—

Alan Duncan: Rubbish!

Harriet Harman: He actually asked me to make a reference to the Standards and Privileges Committee about the privilege issues surrounding the case of the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green); that was in addition. Had we gone ahead with the initial issue that the House resolved upon at the former Speaker's request, we could have been in there, this could have been sorted out and we could have been doing it, but I wanted to listen to what the shadow Leader of the House had to say.

Alan Duncan: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Harriet Harman: I responded to what the hon. Gentleman had to say, so I have been considering whether we should have two committees. There would not be any point in setting up one Committee and then needing a further House resolution to add to its terms of reference.  [Interruption.] I have to say that my inclination to listen to the shadow Leader of the House in good faith is dwindling. I am trying to get this Committee set up in the terms that he wants. It was his suggestion and I acquiesced, although I did not think that it had massive merit. Because I am a forbearing and generous person, I agreed to it, but we are still trying to sort it out.

Albert Owen: In that generous spirit, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the impact that the recession is having on the UK tourist industry? Although it is a resilient and important industry, employment levels are suffering, and it needs support to deliver the quality product that visitors expect.

Harriet Harman: I agree that that is a concern for my hon. Friend's constituency and for the tourist section of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and I will bring his comments to the attention of Ministers.

Pete Wishart: May we have a debate on how current immigration policy impacts on widows and widowers? My constituent Nidhi Singh recently had to return to India from Perth with her two small children following the tragic and untimely death of her husband, just a few months short of securing permanent right to remain in the UK. Surely the right hon. and learned Lady finds that discriminatory and unfair. The Obama Administration recently issued an order to stop all deportation action against widows. When may we expect something similar here in the UK?

Harriet Harman: Cases such as that of the hon. Gentleman's constituent are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Hon. Members can ask Ministers to intervene and exercise their discretion if the legal process has not produced a result that they consider fair. As far as the policy is concerned, the hon. Gentleman can raise it at Home Office questions on Monday. If his constituent remains in the country, he can seek a meeting with the relevant Minister to raise the issue personally.

David Drew: I, for one, welcome the demise of the Bill to privatise Royal Mail. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to talk to the Business Secretary about some of the work practices now operating among our glorious postmen and women. It would be a pyrrhic victory indeed if they were worked to death by changes to rounds, a ban on overtime and the other vindictive practices being introduced.

Harriet Harman: Obviously we want to ensure good relations between management and the work force in all areas of the Post Office and Royal Mail, as well as investment and modernisation to enable them to do their work.
	I am afraid that I omitted to answer the part of the question asked by the shadow Leader of the House about the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, which came out of Committee on 18 June. The Report stage will be held later in this Session, but there has been pressure on dates because of the three days that we had to spend on the Parliamentary Standards Bill.

Peter Bone: My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has shown great leadership in strengthening the role of Back Benchers by allowing Conservative Back Benchers in Committee to vote against the Whip. Yesterday, more than 20 Labour Members voted against the Whip in Committee of the whole House and defeated the Government. May we have a statement on whether the Government are following my right hon. Friend's lead?

Harriet Harman: That is not a matter for business questions.

Barry Gardiner: May we have a debate on entry clearance operations? Many hon. Members make detailed representations to the UK Border Agency so that refusals of visas can be reviewed. There is a growing tendency for Members to be told simply that refusals have been upheld, without any attempt to address the arguments that they have made. In some cases, MPs' representations have not even been passed on to the post for entry clearance officers to consider. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that that abuse is stopped?

Harriet Harman: That would be an important point for my hon. Friend to raise in Home Office questions next week.

Julian Lewis: May we have a statement, or at least something in writing, from a Culture, Media and Sport Minister on the question of what duties journalists have to disclose their credentials when challenged? That would help three of my nearest neighbours, who yesterday were surprised to encounter a person purporting to be a journalist who was trying to find out information about my constituency home. That person refused to give their identity or the name of their newspaper. When asked why they were trying to contact me at home when I must be up in Parliament, they turned tail and ran from the scene. Such harassment of our neighbours, if not of ourselves, needs some attention.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman may wish to draw that issue to the attention of the Press Complaints Commission. If that was indeed a journalist, the media organisation for which they work will be subject to regulation by the PCC, and it should be prepared to look into the matter and take action.

Martin Linton: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Prime Minister's proposal to give extra housing points for years on the waiting list? In my constituency—perhaps also in hers—sons and daughters can almost never afford to rent or buy anywhere near their parents. They may never get enough points for a transfer or a move into social housing, no matter how overcrowded their homes are. This proposal would give hope to many people who have been told time and again that they have no chance of a place of their own.

Harriet Harman: Despite the billions of pounds of investment over the years, which has helped council and social housing tenants in my hon. Friend's constituency and mine live in homes of a decent standard, and despite more building of homes, there is still a great shortage across the country. That is why the programme in "Building Britain's Future" for building more council and housing association homes is so important. As for the management of those applying for council or social housing, my hon. Friend will know of the House of Lords decision that clarified the fact that it was possible for councils to take into account not only need but length of residence in an area and time on the list. New guidance will be issued to make it clear to councils that they can do that.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Leader of the House read the  Hansard report of yesterday's 30-minute debate in Westminster Hall on the Government's response to the Archer inquiry and the victims of contaminated blood products? A substantial number of hon. Members attended the debate, notwithstanding its short duration. Will she take that as evidence of the need for a proper debate in this Chamber that can be attended by other hon. Members, such as myself, who would have attended that debate yesterday if we had not been here dealing with the Parliamentary Standards Bill? The victims of contaminated blood have been treated shabbily, and if we do not allow them the opportunity to ventilate their concerns fully we risk becoming complicit in that shabby treatment.

Harriet Harman: There has been an increase in compensation for those who have had the great misfortune to be infected by contaminated blood. I will certainly read the  Hansard report, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and consider how the issue can be further debated in the House.

Mark Lazarowicz: My right hon. and learned Friend may recall that on Tuesday the issue of the boat carrying emergency supplies to Gaza that was seized by the Israeli forces was raised. One of my constituents was on that boat and I raised the issue with a Foreign Office Minister later that day. A total of six Britons are believed to have been on the boat when it was seized. Can she arrange for a Minister to give an update to the House, or at least to the Members concerned?

Harriet Harman: I will ask the Foreign Secretary to write to my hon. Friend with an update, and to place a copy of the letter in the Library so that other hon. Members can see it.

Philip Hollobone: Further to the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), may we have a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House entitled "The Government's alienation of the middle classes"? Perhaps it could be opened by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, so that he could expand on his reported thesis that the Government's approach to egalitarianism is badly out of step with the majority of the population.

Harriet Harman: I think that the majority of the population believe that it is better to have a fairer and more equal society—one in which people's lives are not blighted and marred by bigotry and discrimination, whether on grounds of sexual orientation or reflecting unfairness towards women at work, unfairness on grounds of race or unfairness caused by the different start that people have by virtue of where they were born. We make no apologies for that agenda. We have put it in the Equality Bill, and it is disappointing that the Opposition declined to support the Bill on Second Reading. We are pressing on with it.

David Taylor: As one of 30 Co-operative MPs in this place, may I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the fact that this Saturday, 4 July, is the United Nations international day of co-operatives? May we have a statement, or perhaps a short debate, on the value of the co-operative movement, whose objectives include international solidarity, economic efficiency, equality and world peace? The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is a prominent Co-operative MP in this place. May we have a debate on this issue, which is important to many people, not only in this country but internationally too?

Harriet Harman: I will look and see what opportunities there might be; that could be a subject for a Westminster Hall debate.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: I would like to make a short statement on two matters. First, the House is served by three outstanding Deputy Speakers, but my election was an indication that the House was ready to accept change. In a modern democracy that puts Parliament first, I am convinced that the choice of such office holders should be determined not by consultation but by the process of election. By convention, and as supported by the Procedure Committee in 2002, the combination of the Speaker and three Deputy Speakers should be drawn equally from the Government and Opposition Benches. A change now is therefore appropriate. Accordingly, I am proposing that a ballot or ballots should be conducted in the House to choose one Deputy Speaker from the Opposition side and two from the Government side of the House. I have consulted the usual channels and I hope to bring that about shortly after the House returns in October.
	The second matter that I wish to mention is the speed of answering written parliamentary questions, which I know is a matter of considerable concern to the House, and especially to Back Benchers. Such questions, and timely answers to them, are an important means by which this House calls the Government of the day to account. I will today be writing to all Ministers in this House to ask them to ensure that the backlog of written questions that remain unanswered is cleared before the recess. I am also setting in hand work on a system of tracking the timeliness of answers so that information will be available to Ministers, Members and those outside this place whom we serve on which questions remain unanswered and the delay in each case. I will have more to say to the House on this matter after the recess.

Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman that, as I think that they will know on reflection, points of order come after statements.

Swine Flu Update

Andy Burnham: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the AH1N1 swine flu pandemic.
	As of today, there are 7,447 laboratory confirmed cases of swine flu in the UK. A significant number of people have been hospitalised. Three people, all of whom had underlying health problems, have, sadly, died. Since the first UK case was confirmed on 27 April, health protection officers, NHS staff from across the UK and Department of Health officials have been leading the fight to contain the virus.
	Last week we started to see a considerable rise in swine flu cases, and the emergence of hot spots in London, the west midlands and Scotland. Since then cases have continued to rise significantly. There are now, on average, several hundred new cases every day. This creates challenges on the ground and pressure on services, but the response from the health community has been tremendous. I hope that the House will join me in putting on record again our sincere thanks to staff in the Health Protection Agency and the NHS, and to general practitioners and all those who work in primary care.
	Our efforts during the containment phase have given us precious time to learn more about the virus, to build up antiviral and antibiotic stockpiles and to start to develop a vaccine. We have always known it would be impossible to contain the virus indefinitely, and that at some point we would need to move away from containment to treating the increasing numbers falling ill. That is why last week I announced the move to outbreak management. That gave hot spots, where there is sustained community-based transmission, more flexibility to deal with the virus.
	Scientists now expect to see rapid rises in the number of cases. Cases are doubling every week, and on this trend we could see more than 100,000 cases per day by the end of August—although I stress that that is only a projection. As cases continue to rise, we have reached the next step in our management of the disease. Our national focus should be on treating the increasing numbers affected by swine flu. Based on experts' recommendations and with the agreement of Health Ministers across all four Administrations, I can today tell the House that we will move to this treatment phase across the UK with immediate effect.
	That will mean that in England the Health Protection Agency will take a step back and primary care will take the lead in diagnosing and distributing antivirals. There will be an immediate end to contact tracing and prophylaxis in all regions, GPs will now provide clinical diagnosis of swine flu cases rather than awaiting laboratory test results, and primary care trusts will now begin to establish antiviral collection points where necessary. The new approach will also mean a move from the daily reported figures of laboratory confirmed cases from the Health Protection Agency to more general estimates of spread.
	Our policy on schools is that they should not close because of individual cases of swine flu but that they could close if the particular local circumstances warranted it. For example, there might be grounds for closure if a significant number of pupils or teachers are ill, or if it is a special school with particularly vulnerable pupils. The HPA will advise on outbreak control issues as usual, and closures will be reported to the Department for Children, Schools and Families.
	I must report to the House that the Civil Contingencies Committee has had lengthy discussions, drawing on expert scientific advice, about who should be treated with antivirals if they contract swine flu. Health Ministers across all four Administrations have noted clear scientific advice that the majority of cases in the UK so far have not been severe, with those catching the virus making a full and fast recovery. However, a minority of people here and overseas have had more serious illness and some have died.
	As we move into the treatment phase, Ministers have considered whether we should continue to offer antivirals to all patients displaying symptoms or whether a more targeted approach should be adopted, focusing on those most at risk of becoming more seriously ill. When very little was known about the disease—especially given the reported fatalities in Mexico—using antivirals prophylactically was sensible to protect people, and may have helped to contain the initial spread of the disease.
	During the containment phase, experts have had time to study the virus. Some experts now suggest that since the virus has proved largely mild, antivirals should be used only to treat those in designated higher-risk groups—that is, those who are more susceptible to developing serious illness or complications. Those are all the groups at risk from seasonal influenza, plus pregnant women and children under five. The experts argue that overusing the drugs can increase the chances of antiviral resistance and expose too many people to the risk of side effects from the medicine.
	The scientific advisory group for emergencies—SAGE—says that, on balance, the science points towards a targeted approach, but it acknowledges that this is a "finely balanced" decision. Expert advice points to the fact that, as this is a new virus, its behaviour cannot be predicted with certainty. Swine flu is different from seasonal flu in that most serious illnesses have been in younger age groups, as happened in all three 20th-century influenza pandemics. A doctor faced with symptomatic patients cannot yet predict with certainty the course of their illness and whether or not they will be in the small proportion who may become more seriously ill.
	Given that, we have decided to take a step-by-step approach. That means that, as in the outbreak-management phase, we will continue to offer antivirals to all those who have contracted the illness. However, it remains a matter of clinical discretion to decide whether antivirals should be prescribed in individual cases, particularly in circumstances where doctors are likely to be contacted by patients with coughs and colds and by the worried well, in addition to those with swine flu. Expert advice emphasises the high importance of treatment with antivirals of those in the higher risk groups. We will therefore issue clear guidance to doctors to ensure that those at higher risk get early priority access to antivirals.
	I acknowledge that this is a cautious approach. Many people will be able to recover from swine flu without the need for antivirals and they may therefore choose not to seek treatment. However, we are much closer to the time when we will receive the first doses of the pandemic flu vaccine that will potentially offer high protection. In the meantime, it is prudent to use our only current measure against the virus— antivirals—to the maximum effect. The science indicates that, as we discover more about the virus and develop a more precise categorisation of risk groups, we are likely to reassess our approach and move to a more targeted use of antivirals. We will keep the matter under review, with advice from SAGE, and will update the House as and when necessary.
	Today, we will set out the new arrangements in a short guide which will be e-mailed to NHS staff and made available online for the public. I know that local GP surgeries and hospitals, particularly in hot-spot areas, are coming under increased pressure. It is important that we do everything we can to reduce the strain on local health services, so we will begin to establish and use alternative routes for people to receive treatment. Initially, that will be via www.nhs.uk or the swine flu information line. Subsequently, it will be via the national pandemic flu service.
	So, if people think they have swine flu, they should first go online and check their symptoms on www.nhs.uk or call the swine flu information line on 0800 151 3513. If they are still concerned, they should then call their GP, who can provide a diagnosis over the phone. If swine flu is confirmed, they will be given an authorisation voucher that someone who can act as a flu friend can take to an antiviral collection point to pick up antivirals. The collection point may be a pharmacy or a community centre.
	As cases increase still further, we will move to a system whereby cases are diagnosed and dealt with by the national pandemic flu service. That will take the pressure off GPs by allowing people to be diagnosed and given their antiviral vouchers either online or via a central call centre. I can tell the House today that preparations are now at an advanced stage, and that we expect the service to be ready when it is needed. At that point, if people have swine flu symptoms they should go on to the national pandemic flu service website, or ring the dedicated call centre.
	Finally, I should like to update the House on vaccines. We have now signed contracts to secure enough vaccine for the whole population. We expect the first batches of vaccines to arrive in August, with around 60 million doses—enough to vaccinate 30 million people—available by the end of the year and more following that. Administering vaccines will need to be prioritised, and we will make a decision on that when we know more about the risk profile.
	Most cases of swine flu have not been severe and we are in a strong position to deal with this pandemic. However, we must not become complacent and, while doubt remains about the way that the virus attacks different groups, today's decision on the move to the treatment phase reflects our caution. I commend this statement to the House.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Secretary of State for the further update. I am grateful to him for the regular opportunities that he has allowed to discuss the matter, and I dare say that that view is shared by the Liberal Democrats.
	I want to join the Secretary of State and the rest of the House in extending our condolences to the families of those who have died. I should also like to express again our gratitude to NHS staff in the pathology laboratories and primary care, as they are under increasing pressure, especially where there are a lot of cases. I am also grateful to general practitioners: sometimes in the past they have felt that Health Ministers have engaged in too much GP-bashing, but we now appreciate how much we need them. Given that we are in the middle of a heat wave, primary care is coming under considerable pressure.
	The Secretary of State will know that we supported the strategy of containment. It has had some success but it is no longer realistic to try to sustain that strategy across the country and we therefore support the move to a treatment strategy. However, given that the disease is less severe than we anticipated—it could have been a great deal worse—it is important that we do not engage in the wide-scale prophylactic use of antiviral drugs.
	The Secretary of State knows that we agree with the proposal that treatment should be offered to all patients, and not just to those in the at-risk groups. About a quarter of fatalities associated with swine flu in the United States were among patients who were not at risk and did not have underlying conditions. Given the availability of antivirals in this country, and the potential to make them available to symptomatic patients, there is no reason why patients who need them and who might go on to have severe or even fatal complications should not be offered them.
	We agree with the Secretary of State that there should be a presumption against automatic school closures: even so, risk assessments clearly should be made. They should cover classes and year groups but, as we go into the autumn, they should also take account of the pressure on the local health economy. If that pressure becomes very great, there might be a case for trying to prevent the rapid spread of the virus through schools, but that may require some future modelling.
	Some of what should be in place according to the contingency plans for the pandemic phase is not ready. The Secretary of State has replied to a letter that I sent on 15 June, and I am grateful for that, but his response does not answer some central questions. He seemed to say that there was no national pandemic flu line because the antiviral distribution arrangements were not in place, but he went on to say that the antiviral distribution arrangements were not in place because the national pandemic flu line was not ready. I am afraid that that is not good enough: both were supposed to be ready by the time that the pandemic phase occurred, and they are not ready. I ask the right hon. Gentleman again: why is the national pandemic flu line not available now, when the Department said that it would be? He says that it will be ready when it is needed but, technically and according to the contingency plan, it is needed now.
	Moreover, the primary care trusts are supposed to have antiviral collection points for the whole population available within seven days of a move to a treatment strategy. Can the Secretary of State therefore confirm that antiviral collection points will be available a week from today?
	The Secretary of State's predecessor wrote to me at the end of April to say that the Department was
	"working urgently to accelerate the procurement process"
	in relation to the acquisition of a national stockpile of antibiotics. Where there are difficulties and complications, especially with infection, treatment often requires antibiotics rather than antivirals. Will the Secretary of State say when that antibiotic stockpile will be required? How large is it? The national modelling suggested that we needed enough for 14 per cent. of the population, but what is he aiming for?
	Is the face-mask stockpile in place? Can the critical care capacity be increased rapidly? What are the criteria now for the cancellation of elective operations? The Secretary of State has made a projection that there will be 130,000 cases a day, and that would be consistent with up to 2,000 hospitalisations a day by the autumn—a figure that would create very considerable pressure on hospitals.
	Vaccination may begin quite soon, in September. Will the Secretary of State therefore publish for debate the Government's proposals for prioritisation for vaccinations?
	Finally, we may not have an opportunity to debate this matter in the House over the recess. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State and the House authorities look for a mechanism to allow virtual statements to be made in that period? The right hon. Gentleman could put up a statement with a few hours' notice and hon. Members, on behalf of our constituents, could ask questions and get answers in real time.

Andy Burnham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the measured tone of his remarks, again, and for all his advice as we go along. I am grateful to him for the helpful discussions that we have had. I am particularly grateful for two points today. I welcome his support for moving to the treatment strategy and the timing of that move. He and I agree that the pressure on the system is such that it is the right time to take this step, and I think that it will be welcomed across the NHS. I also welcome his statement that he agrees with the cautious approach that we have outlined in the statement that antivirals should be offered to all those who display symptoms.
	The House will have heard over the years, as we have prepared for this eventuality, how steps were taken by the Department of Health to put us in the strongest possible position to plan and face any outbreak of a flu pandemic, and because of that preparation we can use the stockpile of antivirals to offer that cautious approach. As I said in my statement, as the availability of the vaccine comes on line, pressure on the antiviral stockpile will obviously be relieved. So we think that that approach is prudent, although I say again that the science points us to a more targeted use of antivirals. In discussion with colleagues in the devolved Administrations, I felt that now was not the right time to go, given that SAGE said that the decision was "finely balanced." We need to know more and we need to have more conclusive evidence before taking a move of that kind.
	I further welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the policy on school closures. It is worth pointing out that many schools in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have already broken up for the summer, and that in itself may help us to control the spread of the illness in those countries. The policy has to be judged locally—a decision has to be taken on the ground—and I assure him that, if there are concerns and grounds to close, although it is the job of the Health Protection Agency and others to advise, it is the job of the head teacher and the school governing body to take the final decision about any school closure.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about the flu line and the readiness of antiviral collection points around the country. I can confirm that, through strategic health authorities that have been working with PCTs, we have now in place sufficient collection points that can be stood up within seven days. So I can give him the assurance that he sought. Obviously, we can also activate the interim pandemic flu service within a short time frame. That point has not yet been reached, but I can assure him that we will update the House on that issue over the coming days.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about access to antibiotics and the size of the antibiotic stockpile. We are on track to have sufficient antibiotic stocks to cover 31 per cent. of the UK population, which equates to 19.6 million courses, by the end of September, with the stockpile having reached over 10 per cent. of the population—6.2 million courses—by mid-June. He has challenged on that point a number of times; he is absolutely right to do so. I will continue to update him on it. Of course, antibiotics may be needed to treat some of the most common complications of flu, including bacterial infections of the respiratory tract and lungs. It is important that anyone who thinks that they are in danger of developing such complications should get in touch with their GP.
	I want to make a couple of final points. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether we can debate prioritisation. I will have to reflect on whether a debate in the House is the right thing to do. At all times, we should be led by the guidance from SAGE and the experts. I can assure him that we will bring our conclusions to the House. Indeed, if there is a measure of debate about them, I do not think that that would be a bad thing, but I do not want to give a commitment to hold a debate on the Floor of the House, when we are obviously dealing with a fast-moving situation.
	Lastly, as was raised during Prime Minister's questions yesterday, there needs to be a mechanism so that we can continue to update both Front-Bench teams and hon. Members on both sides of the House over the summer. Perhaps we need to find a way—perhaps through the Speaker's Office, or some other mechanism—whereby we can get virtual statements, as he referred to them, to any hon. Member who wants one.

Sandra Gidley: I start by offering apologies from my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is unable to be here today. He asked me to thank the Secretary of State and his predecessor for keeping him fully informed throughout the progress of the flu pandemic. I should like to add my thanks for the advance notice of today's statement.
	I, too, should like to thank the NHS staff who have been dealing with the illness and all those at the Department of Health who have been providing support to others behind the scenes and burning the midnight oil—they do not get praise very often. We, too, welcome the cautious approach that the Secretary of State is taking to these matters. It is a difficult decision—a finely balanced one—but we support him in the conclusion that Ministers have reached.
	I have a short list of questions, which are designed both to be constructive and to elicit more information. First, at the moment, all who have contracted the illness will be offered medication, but that could change to its provision to at-risk groups only. The Secretary of State did not mention the position of NHS staff. It seems to me that particularly front-line staff in hospitals are a special case, so has any different consideration been given to providing prophylactic measures for those staff and are they being offered any special treatment? What contingency plans are in place if flu affects the availability to work of large numbers of front-line staff?
	What assessment has the Secretary of State made of PCTs' preparedness? My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk has asked in the past for details of preparedness to be published, and it would be helpful if that was done. My understanding is that some PCTs have made excellent preparations and others less so. What measures are being taken to bring the less proactive PCTs up to speed?
	Are sufficient stocks of Tamiflu left to meet predicted demand? Is there any clarity about whether the hot weather has affected the spread of the virus in any way, or has it had the opposite effect?
	With regard to information, the Secretary of State mentioned the hotline, but he will probably recall that most households received leaflets earlier in the year at the beginning of the outbreak. I suspect that many householders will have thrown away those leaflets, which provided a useful range of information. So are there any plans to re-leaflet or to run a wider media campaign, so that people can be informed about the outbreak? Will the e-mail to NHS staff include pharmacies that are contracted to the NHS?
	I have a couple of questions about collection points. Has any special consideration been given to the more rural areas, which very often rely on dispensing GPs? I suggest that it is probably not the best idea to have even flu friends or other possible contacts descending on dispending doctors' surgeries. So has any thought been given to such access in rural areas?
	There has been some publicity in the media about something called a flu party. It strikes me as particularly bizarre that parents want to try to improve their children's chances of contracting flu. Has the Secretary of State had any advice on whether that is a good or a bad thing? It seems to me instinctively that it is a bad thing, but there has been much in the media about it.
	Finally, I welcome—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her ration.

Andy Burnham: I thank the hon. Lady for making her remarks in a measured and helpful way, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) did; I am very grateful for that. She was right to praise, as the hon. Gentleman did, those members of NHS staff who are sometimes unsung; they are not the ones on the front line whom we always think of and talk about. The hon. Gentleman mentioned staff in path labs, too. I think that staff in Richmond House will feel a little cheered today to have had their efforts recognised by the Lib Dem Front Bencher. Perhaps they will go about their work today with that extra lift in their heart. It is very nice of the hon. Lady to offer her thanks. Those staff have genuinely been working hard, and have put in a lot of work over a long period. It will be appreciated that that has been recognised by the hon. Lady.
	Lots of the questions that the hon. Lady asked deal with the issues to which our minds are now turning—the preparedness of the NHS to deal with the pressure that it will face in the coming weeks, and the logistics of the systems that we are putting in place to make sure that we can provide credible alternative routes, so that people do not have to go straight to their general practitioner. If they did, GPs' other business would, as life went on, become more and more difficult. She is absolutely right to ask about and probe us on those issues. All our efforts are now fully engaged on that task.
	I shall try to deal with some of the questions that the hon. Lady raised. On NHS staff, currently the advice is that they are to be offered prophylactic treatment after contact with flu patients. We have proposed that there be special arrangements for staff in the treatment phase. That is being looked at again by Ministers, and I will update the House as and when necessary. The issue will be considered at next week's Cobra meeting. We will, of course, update the House at that point.
	The hon. Lady asked about the preparedness of PCTs and asked whether there were variants. That is a question that I have raised; again, it will be raised at the Cobra meeting next week. I said in response to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that all PCTs have been assessed, and their readiness to stand up collection points within seven days has been confirmed, but the hon. Lady is right to say that the quality of preparedness may vary from one place to another. I will respond to her on that point as and when we have more information that we can place in the public domain. However, she should feel reassured that a considerable amount of attention has gone into the matter, and that PCTs in all parts of the country are ready to step up to the challenge that they will face.
	I neglected to deal with a point that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire raised. The Department of Health has provided surge capacity guidance more generally to the NHS, with advice on a range of measures, including on cancellation of elective surgery being brought into play when local circumstances require it. He asked whether we had issued such guidance; I can confirm that we have. I can provide more details to him, if that would be helpful.
	The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) mentioned the weather. I am not sure that it is playing a role. However, we are seeing spread during a part of the year when we would not normally expect to see considerable spread. If there is more that we can tell her, we will do so. We believe that now is a good moment to reiterate our communications messages through public-facing, simple and clear documents that can be issued more widely. One of them is perhaps more for people working in local government and other parts of the public sector, but I will take on board what she said about repeating our leaflet and other messaging campaigns. She is right to say that we need to be on top of providing clear and consistent communications at all times.
	Pharmacies may have a role as collection points in some parts of the country, where primary care trusts have deemed that to be appropriate. Of course, we will ensure that they are in the communications loop, because the issues may impact on their day-to-day job anyway. On the question about rural areas—

Andrew Robathan: Is this a speech?

Andy Burnham: I am answering the questions. In response to the point on rural areas, we ensure that representatives from the Local Government Association are invited to all meetings of the Ministerial Committee on Civil Contingencies. Of course, PCTs, particularly in rural areas, will give particular attention to the issues that the hon. Lady raises.
	Finally, on swine flu parties, the best thing that I can say is that if anybody receives an invitation to one, they should politely turn it down. The chief medical officer said yesterday:
	"It is seriously flawed thinking to allow the virus to spread unabated through 'swine flu parties'."
	We hope that that message will be heard loud and clear by anybody who is planning such a party, or plans to attend one.

Joan Walley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's careful, considered and co-ordinated approach, but on behalf of laryngectomy patients in my constituency and in north Staffordshire, may I ask him whether he will pay particular regard to their concerns about the need for a special filter, the micron filter, for neck breathers? Will he make inquiries of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and find out whether, despite the delays so far in getting approval from NICE, that approval can be hurried through the system, so that people who are particularly highly prone to infection can receive some safeguards and support in this difficult time of swine flu?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend raises an important question. I have to say to her that I do not have the answer to hand, but I will get an answer for her. Of course, we want to ensure that no vulnerable group is exposed to risk in this period, so I will get back to her on the subject.

Andrew Murrison: It is good to hear that a vaccine for H1N1 will be available in the autumn, but of course that is about the time when elderly and vulnerable people would ordinarily expect to be vaccinated for seasonal flu. I assume that the Department of Health's position is that that vaccination should go ahead. It would be useful to have the Minister's confirmation that he will attempt to deconflict advice on H1N1 and seasonal flu, because obviously there is considerable scope for confusion on the subject.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. Of course, the measures do not conflict with the seasonal flu vaccination programme. If we need to improve guidance on the subject, then of course we will do so. As I indicated, there is a decision to be taken about the time scale and the prioritisation of how vaccine is made available once it is received. Stocks will begin to arrive in August. They will build up in September and October, but obviously we will not be able to treat everybody until later in the year. However, that has to be carefully planned alongside the seasonal flu vaccination programme. We will ensure that once decisions are taken, clear guidance is given to general practitioners in that regard.

Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend will know that Birmingham is one of the areas most extensively affected by swine flu. May I endorse what he and others have said about expressing thanks to all the NHS staff who have worked so hard over the period? On Monday this week, another south Birmingham MP and I met South Birmingham primary care trust to talk about the situation in south Birmingham. I understand what my right hon. Friend is saying about the evidence perhaps moving us towards greater consideration of more targeted approaches, but I am sure that he is right to adopt the cautious approach. So far, the PCT has a very good record of keeping in touch with MPs daily, with updates and guidance about what is being provided in the area. May I put it to him that it is important that that continues, and is perhaps generalised elsewhere, particularly as we move towards the treatment phase?

Andy Burnham: I thank my hon. Friend for that. It was a visit that I made to Birmingham a fortnight ago that really gave me a clear picture of the pressure on staff on the ground in the west midlands. It was impressive to see how the HPA works with colleagues from across the health service in the west midlands, and with local government. The visit also showed how staff had been tested. I was tremendously impressed by how they had come through that test and provided a very good service to his constituents. Those staff do indeed deserve our praise.
	I am pleased that my hon. Friend says that he feels that we have taken the right approach. The science is pointing towards a more targeted approach; we need to be clear about that. It is likely that we will move in that direction at some point, although I do not think that anybody in this House would feel that a finely balanced judgment on the science would, at this stage, allow us to move a couple of steps further than we want to go. We proceed with a step-by-step approach, and I am pleased to hear that he feels that that is the right approach to take.
	Information for MPs is very important; the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) asked me about availability of information during the summer break. This is incredibly important. I shall take the point back, and see whether, as we move into the treatment phase, PCTs, without being placed under any undue burden, can offer to colleagues throughout the House a simple, regular breakdown of local information that would help inform Members and councillors about the situation on the ground. I shall take back that suggestion, which would help keep the House updated over the summer. At the same time, however, I would not want to place any undue burden on primary care trusts. We will look at that very sensible suggestion and let my hon. Friend know the decision.

Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the Minister for his comments to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on public information. He will be aware that I wrote to him in early June about Kenton in my constituency, which did not receive the initial leaflet. When will those areas that missed out receive such leaflets? I also emphasise the point about public information and encouraging people not to go to work or other public places, but to keep their virus at home, so that they do not spread it to people at risk, in particular, such as the elderly. Will the Minister therefore talk to people such as church representatives? Churches still encourage people to attend every Sunday, but if we take our flu virus and give it to the elderly person sat next to us, we might send some people to meet their maker earlier than we want them to.

Andy Burnham: I shall certainly look into the question of leaflet distribution. There were some complaints from my own constituency, I have to say—before I took this job, obviously. It is also important to point out that the website offers the same advice, and that leaflets are available in public places. That said, it is important that we get as much as information as possible into the home.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about advising people to stay at home, which is incredibly important. That relates to the point about swine flu parties. We do not yet know enough about the condition. We can say that it is mild, although some cases have been more severe, so the advice is to go home and rest, take plenty of fluids, and take paracetamol—the usual things that we all do. That is the advice for people, and if they are symptomatic, they really should not continue with their normal life, because it could add to the spread of the disease. The fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised the point may have allowed a few people watching the Parliament channel to hear it again.

Barry Gardiner: In this phase or in respect of any future recurrence of the pandemic, is there a need to expand the capacity of isolation units, such as that at Northwick Park hospital in my constituency, and will central funding be made available to trusts to upgrade these nationally important resources?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend has raised that point with me before, and it is incredibly important. Hospitals are able to provide isolation facilities, but as cases increased, that would become progressively more difficult. These issues are kept under very careful review, and Ian Dalton is the NHS lead on preparedness for pandemic flu. I shall ask that he write to my hon. Friend on this particular issue and give him a full answer on the situation not just around the country but in his constituency.

Roger Williams: I support the Secretary of State's decision to cease the routine prophylactic use of antivirals for the contacts of people who have the disease. I heard what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) about keeping prophylactic use in hospitals and other health services under consideration, but I hope that he will not rule out prophylactic use for vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals whose health is compromised in some way and may be more severely affected by the disease than the average person.

Andy Burnham: That is an important point, and of course we would not rule out such a possibility. However, the judgment should be made locally. Where particularly vulnerable people are close to somebody who has come down with the illness, we want it to be clinicians and GPs who take those issues into account, when dealing with the patient.

Howard Stoate: May I join my right hon. Friend in recognising the almost unique ability of British primary care to deal with such an outbreak, and thank him for his kind words on all the hard work that staff do? Of course, that includes GPs, practice nurses, pharmacists and any other support staff.
	There is a problem, however, as primary care could become overwhelmed if the pandemic takes off as predicted. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the public are informed through a regular information campaign, operating daily, to let them know precisely what they should do in certain circumstances? Many people do not have access to the internet and many do not read newspapers, but they need to be kept well informed almost daily about the changing situation and how they ought to respond should they be struck down with an illness.

Andy Burnham: The House has been debating second jobs this week, and my hon. Friend's second job is particularly useful in this regard. He is not only representing his constituents here on swine flu, but treating them, and my praise of GPs of course extends to him.
	We are very conscious of the ability of primary care to cope, and although the national pandemic flu service is new, we think it is important to send out the message today and consistently about why it is important for people, where they can, to use that alternative route to secure treatment. There will continue to be patients who will wish to go to their GP, and that is right and proper; I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees and does not want any heavy-handed interference. We want to encourage the vast majority of people, however—particularly those to whom the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire referred, such as young people who want to get on with life—to use the new access routes that we are creating. I agree that because the routes are new, it is important that they are communicated clearly and regularly, so that people are not in any doubt. Regular public information will be important as we enter a phase in which the numbers of cases rise. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), I would not want us to place undue burdens on the service in asking it to churn or crank out statistics when it should be doing other things, but public information is very important in such a situation. I take very seriously what my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) said, and I shall see what is the appropriate level of information to put out regularly.

Points of Order

Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for your clarification, because yesterday we heard a Minister from the other place on broadcasts such as the "Today" programme, in particular, making a very clear announcement—I know, because I have checked the transcripts—that the Government were essentially going to nationalise the company running the east coast main line franchise. The announcement was made on two or three occasions; it was raised in the House yesterday; and Mr. Speaker was somewhat misdirected, although he was prepared to be corrected in the sense that he was not aware of that. I have handed him the transcript and a request that he now make a statement about it. Today, however, we did not hear anything.
	Are you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, aware of whether Mr. Speaker has now reached any conclusions about this matter, and whether he plans to make any statement at all about the Government's disgraceful behaviour in not coming to this House until very late in the evening—after most people had gone? The other place heard a statement much earlier, and we had an indication from a Minister on a broadcast that some very important act was taking place, but this House was literally the last place in Britain to hear about it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I can do no better than refer the right hon. Gentleman to the responses that Mr. Speaker gave last evening on his considered reflections on the situation that had been raised with him earlier in the day. I think that Mr. Speaker expressed his satisfaction that, on the nature of the statement, nothing very different could have happened. The Secretary of State was obviously confronted with a very unusual situation; there was then a separate matter as to when that could be brought before this House; and there is always a dilemma for the Speaker, when he has timetabled business in the House of a very special nature relating to the House, as to whether it is proper to take further time out of that in order to advance a ministerial statement to this House. I think that it was a combination of very special circumstances, and Mr. Speaker, having reflected on it, gave the judgment he gave, which is in  Hansard, last evening.

Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice and help. Since he became Speaker, Mr. Speaker has on a number of occasions deprecated to the House the habit of giving information on policy to the media before it is announced in the House. That is right.
	I am sure that Mr. Speaker is as concerned as I am about the fact that his statement today was a significant story on the BBC news website half an hour before he made it. That suggests that it was leaked to the BBC. I was wondering whether Mr. Speaker would like to carry out an inquiry to try to find out how the statement was leaked and given to the corporation prior to its being made in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman could not possibly expect me to comment. Mr. Speaker will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has put on the record, but I could not possibly begin to opine about what may have occurred. I should just add that the fact that Mr. Speaker was going to make a statement was certainly in the public arena, in the sense that it was displayed on the annunciators in the House. I know no more than that.

Simon Burns: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assure you that although the fact that Mr. Speaker was to make a statement was on the monitors, in no shape or form was it clear what the statement would be about. The other point is that if the Government have to bring statements here first rather than leaking them, no one—whether it is the Government or any other body with advance notice—should leak Mr. Speaker's statements to the media.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot speculate about that. I say again to the hon. Gentleman that he has put his concerns on the record. If something injudicious or accidental has occurred, there will no doubt be opportunity for further comment. The issue is hardly more urgent than that.

Lindsay Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have heard through speculation in the press and noises from another place that the part-privatisation of the Royal Mail has been dropped. Can we expect a statement in the House on the matter, and has any notice been given of such a statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know of no intention to make such a statement; it would have been appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to have made his point to the Leader of the House during business questions. He makes it on a point of order now, and I am not in a position to give an answer. At present, I know of no such intention.  [Interruption.] Order. I say to the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) that an across-the-House discussion about multi-tasking is not appropriate at this moment.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Act 2009
	Business Rate Supplements Act 2009
	Saving Gateway Accounts Act 2009
	Broads Authority Act 2009

Estimates Day
	 — 
	[3rd Allotted Day]
	 — 
	DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES

Looked-after Children

[Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Children, Schools and Families Committee, HC 111, on looked-after children, and the Government response, HC 787.]
	 Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010, for expenditure by the Department for Children, Schools and Families—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £32,152,966,000 be authorised for use as set out in HC 514,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £32,181,534,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid. —(Steve McCabe.)

Barry Sheerman: It is a pleasure to open this debate on the recent report of the Children, Schools and Families Committee following an inquiry that took us a long time. I should like to take the House briefly through why we decided to spend many months investigating looked-after children. We adopted the phrase "looked-after children", but as the evidence sittings went on, we realised to our embarrassment that what we had thought was the up-to-date phrase had reverted to "children in care". However, we all know the children about whom we are talking: those whose family situation is such that they are deemed to be better off in the care of the state than in the care of their own parents.
	We chose the topic because those of us who had been in the Education and Skills Committee and transferred to the Children, Schools and Families Committee wanted to make it clear to everyone that we took the new Department and our new responsibilities very seriously. After serious discussion, we decided that the best way to start was to show that we wanted to understand the situation of the most vulnerable children in our society—looked-after children. We proceeded.
	Not many people outside this place know how we work, but I should say that we had a seminar in which we decided that we should investigate the issue and could add value to it. Colleagues should remember that in Select Committees we do not try to think of high-profile issues that get a lot of publicity—we genuinely look to where we can add value. We may feel that the Government are not paying much attention to a particular part of the Department for Children, Schools and Families remit or are spending an awful lot of money that we are not sure is being spent wisely. That is the central scrutinising role of a Select Committee, and we take it seriously. So we decided to conduct a thorough inquiry into looked-after children because we believed that it would add value.
	There is another thing that those who have never been members of a Select Committee do not realise: we operate by listening. We take evidence, read and publicly announce the terms of the inquiry. We then get a great deal of evidence. I remember that when the Education and Skills Committee considered special educational needs, there were 300 written evidence submissions. There were even 30 such submissions for a short one-day report last week on allegations against teachers. The world, of course, is divided into the 50 per cent. who are desperate to give evidence to our Committee and the 50 per cent. who would rather leave the country. We have to choose carefully who we need to appear before us so that they can be interrogated and so that we can find out the situation in their area of expertise. That skill has developed over time, and those of us who have served on Select Committees know that that is an apprenticeship that we have to get through and develop.
	I emphasise how important the listening part of the Select Committee's job is. When we were examining the issue of looked-after children, we made visits to look at good practice in various places. We went to Denmark to look at the system there; many people believe that the Danes do things differently and, in some ways, better than we do. In any other field of human activity, we would take it for granted that one should listen to the people most affected, so we spent a considerable time ensuring that we met looked-after children—children who had been in care, were in care and had the experience of care—so that they could tell us first hand what being in care was like in the 21st century in our country.

Keith Vaz: I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and his Committee on this very important subject. Did he specifically consider the position of children who had been trafficked into this country—a concern of the Home Affairs Committee in our last report—and had then been left in care, but escaped soon afterwards to carry on being abused by those who brought them here?

Barry Sheerman: We did so peripherally, mostly in terms of children who turn up in this country with no obvious parents and are in care because of that. One of the other skills of a Select Committee is to determine where to draw the line, otherwise the inquiry would never get finished. Often, when one is doing a good inquiry and really getting under the skin of the issue, that leads to the next inquiry, so my right hon. Friend should not give up hope—we might get there.
	When one looks at the care of children in this country, one sees that so much always comes back to the quality of the work force and how they are recruited, trained, paid and supported. That is absolutely central to the level and quality of care that is given. As we went on, it became obvious that we had to undertake an inquiry, which we are now doing, on the training of social workers. The two reports will go very well together. My right hon. Friend will know all about that process from his own Select Committee; it is part of the technique. That is how we conducted ourselves, and that is how we wrote, I think, a good and positive report.
	When the Committee has taken all its evidence and made all its visits, we have to spend considerable time coming up with a report that we think someone will listen to and will make the difference that we hoped it would. Part of the process is ensuring that the Government listen to what we say—and it is a remarkable opportunity to be here on the Floor of the House being able to debate and discuss the report that we produced. Of course, another part of our role is to tell the outside world, through the media, what our conclusions were on the matter and what changes we want in Government policy. There is no point in producing a report that is put on the shelf, gathers dust and makes no difference to the children in our country.
	Let me allude to some figures. In England, there are at any one time about 60,000 children in care, and in the course of a year about 90,000 children will go through care. One can immediately see the difficulties that we face. It is an unstable population. Some children go into care early and stay for a long time—perhaps for all their childhood—while many do so very late having been greatly damaged by their experience in their birth family. There is sometimes an easy perception that England does a poor job in terms of corporate parenting. We found early on in the process of learning the lessons that a high percentage of children who go into care do so very damaged and quite late. Extrapolating the statistics, we found that children in care perform badly in GCSEs and other examinations and in going on to higher education. As one hears the evidence, one does not wonder why that is, because it is clear that many of these children have not been supported in their education; indeed, they have not been sent to school. They have had such a turmoil of a life that going into corporate care is an attempt to bring the shattered pieces together and rebuild it. That is very difficult to do in the case of a child who goes into care at age 13 or 14; I think that some of my colleagues who have worked in the sector will endorse that.
	We have to be extremely careful about laying blame and saying that what local authorities and the Government do is much worse than what anybody else does. I do not believe that that is true. This is very difficult area to work in. The churn—the movement in and out of care and the resulting instability in children's lives—is at the heart of our concerns.

John Hemming: The figures that I have from the SSDA903 return state that in England between 7,000 and 8,000 children a year are going into care. That does not entirely reconcile with the hon. Gentleman's figure of 90,000. Can he explain the difference?

Barry Sheerman: The figures I cited were given to the Committee; the hon. Gentleman can read the report and check them. His figures may be different from ours, but we were told that on average 90,000 children go into care every year and, if one looked today, 60,000 children would be in care.
	It is not rocket science to know that what a child who has had a very poor experience in their birth family needs more than anything else is stability and a loving relationship with someone. This is difficult, because we do not deal in apportioning and evaluating love, but we know that if a child does not have love in its formative years, it has little hope of growing up into a mature, decent and fully functioning citizen.

Meg Munn: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, who is making some important points. Did the Committee consider the fact that some children do indeed love their parents from their birth family, but their parents have been unable to provide for them in that way, so such children have a loving relationship but it is insufficient for their needs? When a child then develops another relationship with a substitute carer, that can create a conflict that is a difficulty for them in settling down in a new family.

Barry Sheerman: That is the danger of letting a real expert intervene on one's speech. Of course, my hon. Friend is right—that is one of the real strains in a child's life.
	We found that as far as possible we want, of course, to keep families together. The most important work in our country is done by social workers and other people in the social care field in maintaining families in a good state. We looked at projects in places such as Morden, one of the London boroughs, where there is an excellent family support unit. Its job is to identify a family in trouble, with stresses and strains within it that had come to people's attention through a GP, a social worker or a health visitor; or it could have come by many other means. One of the jobs of a local authority is to keep good antennae identifying where children and families are in that stressed state. In areas with good practice, we saw that where a family was deemed to be in need of support, in came that support. The whole Committee was very impressed by the Morden experience, where an all-singing, all-dancing support team would go in to support the family for six months, see if it could get them back on the right road, and then step back and let them get on with their own lives. Then, if it did not work, the team could do it again. The general point is that good social work support is essential; if it can support the family and the child in the family, that must, in many cases, be the right route.
	We found that the most difficult aspect of all this is the decision on when to take a child into care and striking the balance in deciding whether that child is better off in a rather dysfunctional family, perhaps with a history of mental illness or drug or alcohol addiction. A large number of families have serious problems, but that does not mean they cannot maintain a family life of some quality. It is a question of identifying the problem and then supporting the family, but at a certain stage making the decision. When we compared our experience with that of Denmark, we found—certainly this was my perception as Chair of the Committee—that what was being done in Denmark seemed to lead to a better reputation for the social work process. It seemed from the evidence we took and our experience in Denmark that people did not consider it the end of the world for their children to go into some form of care; it was seen as a reasonably positive thing. We talked to families and experts and found that, in certain care situations, a good relationship with the birth family was maintained. The family would visit, even if there was a background of abuse, including sexual abuse. That relationship was maintained, and many families felt that it was right for their child to be in that situation. They valued the fact that they still had access and that that loving relationship could continue.
	When we took evidence from children who had been in care, one strong voice was that of children who said that they did not want a substitute family. Some quite liked the family that they had, and had the type of loving relationship that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) mentioned. Perhaps others had had too much struggle, strife and stress from the family that they had come from and did not want to try another one. Some children in that situation said that they would prefer some form of residential care.
	We found that in this country there is a history of saying, "No, no, no" to residential care, because there has been a background of large-scale residential care and there was a period in which evidence of widespread child abuse came to light. Now it is very difficult to persuade people that residential care is appropriate. In Denmark, we saw small units of not more than 12 or 14 children, which had a good atmosphere and came close to recreating a family relationship, but a caring one. They were open to parents and visitors.

Graham Stuart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Danish experience is not just that children are happier because of how they are looked after in care, but that their educational outcomes and thus their life chances are transformed?

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend—it is difficult to call him "the hon. Gentleman", as we work together so closely that I regard him as a friend, except when we fall out—is absolutely right.
	That brings me back to the lessons that we learned in the inquiry. Families should be kept together if possible, but a really difficult decision is at what stage a child should be taken into care. Why does Manchester take double the national average into care, the highest proportion in the land? Ironically the City of London is next, but hardly anyone lives there. Other areas take only half Manchester's proportion into care. Is Manchester doing a wonderful job of seeing children who need to be in care and reacting quickly and positively, or is it Morden, in London, that is doing the fantastic job? We did not find the answer, but as the report shows, we started considering the tension that exists in the system.
	Of course we must have child protection. Two thirds of the way through the inquiry, we discovered the horrific news about the death of baby Peter. We extended the inquiry a little to examine the balance between what we had been considering and what was happening in child protection. The lesson that we learned was that only the most thoughtless politician will say that there will never be another child death. Anyone who serves on our Committee or knows anything about the matter knows that given the level of mental illness and alcohol and drug abuse, there will be other child murders and deaths, and they will be horrific. We have to be aware that that will happen and react in the right way when such tragedies occur, to find out what went wrong and how to minimise them. My colleagues and I suspect that we will never be able to eradicate such events. Even in countries such as Denmark there is a pretty serious rate of child murder, despite all the resources and attention put into the matter.

David Chaytor: Before we leave the Danish comparison, is there not a deeper cultural issue, which is reflected in how the Danish state sees the status of child care workers? It is similar in the other Scandinavian countries. Is not one lesson to be drawn from the Committee's inquiry, and previous inquiries into the early years phase, that we in the UK have historically dramatically undervalued the status of those working with children? Does that not say something about our national cultural attitude to the importance of child rearing in our society?

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend knows that I will agree, and I was just going to come to that.
	Any parliamentarian has to face the fact that, as we want to get the best level of child protection we can—it should be as good in every local authority as it is in the best—we must have better systems. Ofsted must be better, as must leadership and the sharing of best practice, to ensure we protect every child as well as we humanly can. I feel that very strongly. We must balance that consideration with the danger that, after a tragic death, all the resources are rushed into child protection, which can starve resources for the support of families and good-quality social work. That is an interesting tension.
	The Committee said in our report, I suppose quite dramatically, that we do not believe we will ever eradicate child murder. However, really high-quality care can substantially reduce child misery. A problem that we can never really resolve is finding out to what degree a child is in misery and living a blighted life without society being able to identify that miserableness—is that the right word?

Tim Loughton: Misery.

Barry Sheerman: Thank you. The question is how we can ensure that we intervene. It all depends on having good systems and high-quality, trained people. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) put it correctly, because I know of no business in the world that cannot benefit from high-quality people who are selected well and have the right personality, qualifications and enthusiasm. They must be supported to do their job, and they must be paid a decent salary and given a career ladder that will keep them in the profession and motivate them to do good work.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will my hon. Friend highlight the consequences in later life of the child misery to which he referred? Children who are miserable in care often end up being victims of sexual exploitation when they leave care. They frequently fail to get any qualifications, and they remain unemployed and turn to drug addiction not because it is inherited but, overwhelmingly, because they have been unhappy and feel like failures. We as a state—their parents—have failed to prepare them for the realities of the adult world.

Barry Sheerman: I think my hon. Friend knows that I agree with that. That is where the line is drawn—we must ask whether a child is miserable with their birth family and whether they would be miserable in care. A fundamental conclusion of the report was that care has to be a very good option. Children who have been failed by their family do not deserve to be failed again. I get the feeling that the general view out there is that people expect us to stand up for the very best standards for children in care, because that is the litmus test of a civilised society. Children in care are the least fortunate and the most vulnerable children in our society, so we should be judged on how we look after them, and we should look after them as well as we can.

Ann Coffey: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about maintaining the highest possible standards in care, particularly in children's homes. Did his Committee look at how we can improve standards of care in children's homes, perhaps by looking at Ofsted's inspection process and considering ways of improving it?

Barry Sheerman: I can assure my hon. Friend not only that we did that, but that we looked at how we reward social workers, who work in the most difficult situations. As I have said, that is why we are also looking at the training of social workers. We have nearly completed that work, which we are doing now because we could not do it as thoroughly as we wanted before. In the generality, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North is absolutely right. We pay minimum wage-plus to so many people working in early years—we did an inquiry into early years—and they are the most poorly trained people in the work force. There is no doubt that things are getting better, but they are not getting better fast enough and we need crossover, particularly into residential care.
	We said in the report that level 3 qualifications should be the absolute minimum, but in residential care we found the lowest paid, the lowest rewarded and valued, and the least trained people in the social care work force. That is not good enough and it has to change. Residential care should be as good as we can get it. We should experiment, pilot schemes and copy some of the good practice that we saw in Denmark and this country. Size matters a great deal—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley said that 12 or 14 for a unit was quite big—so it is important to get it right.
	Let me make a general point. The care should be absolutely fantastic, but that will not come cheap—I remind the House that people in Denmark pay 50 per cent. income tax and 25 per cent. VAT. However, if such care is a touchstone or a litmus test of how civilised we are as a society, we should persuade our constituents to pay the money and make the necessary sacrifices.

John Hemming: The Committee's experience of the quality of care in Denmark was that the children were less miserable because they were kept in touch with their parents. I have checked the hon. Gentleman's figure of 90,000 or 85,000 for the number of children who may have been in care in any one year, but it is not the number of children who go into care or come out of it. In practice, about 7,000 to 8,000 children go into care as a result of care orders. Of those who leave care, the majority leave to adoption—the figure was about 3,800, but it has come down slightly. However, that drives a wedge between the parents and the practitioners, because the practitioners have to reduce contact with the parents to prepare the children for adoption, which is the complete opposite of what happens in Denmark. Would it perhaps not be a good idea to invite somebody from Denmark to do a critique of the system in England?

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. He has also pulled me up on my figures. I should tell him that he has read that part of our report more recently than I have—that report is three reports away in this poor brain of mine, but I thank him for his intervention. He is probably quite right about getting external evaluation, but in a sense that is what we try to do as a Select Committee by going somewhere that we think has good practice. Some of the things that we saw informed our report and we made some strong points.

Tim Loughton: Let me bring the hon. Gentleman back to cost and Denmark, about which I would like to make a comment if I have an opportunity. I was there about three years ago and visited some of the homes that I think his Committee visited. Interestingly, although a lot of extra money goes into training and child care in Denmark, the cost of housing children in some residential homes, including the one that I visited, which was run by the local municipality in Copenhagen, works out at about £56,000 a year. That is half the average cost of a residential home for a child in the UK, so in fact the cost need not be more expensive.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Barry Sheerman: Let me make just a little more progress.
	I want to cover the fundamentals, which are these. First, residential care should be better, and people should be paid and supported better. I do not want to go down the road of talking about social workers too much, but when we interviewed children who had been in care, we found that the problem was the rotation of social workers. There was no one person whom they knew—no person whose face they knew; no one with whom they were familiar or with whom they had a good relationship.
	We cannot have a system where a child—any child, let alone a child in care—never knows which social worker he or she will meet or when they will meet them. There has to be a consistency of relationship in the caring system. That was one of our sharpest criticisms of the experience that those children had had. Consistency means knowing someone—knowing their face and knowing that if everything went wrong at midnight or three in the morning, there would be someone whom the child could phone whom they knew, respected and, hopefully, loved. That is a tall order, but the Committee decided that we wanted to make a strong point about how key that stability in relationships is.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Barry Sheerman: Let me give way to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) first.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the failures of the current system, notwithstanding improvements. We need a shift in the whole political system so that we take the issue more seriously, because progress is glacially slow compared with the moral outrage that is happening to the most vulnerable children in our country, despite this country's wealth and our expenditure in other areas. We need to speed up that change if we are not to let down another generation of children, so what specific measures would the hon. Gentleman most like to see in major party manifestos at the general election, when it comes?

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is being slightly mischievous. I am not going down that route; I am going to make my speech, which will encapsulate some of the things that I would like any party to adopt as policy.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Barry Sheerman: Two minutes.
	Let me finish on the quality of the work force, which is at the heart of our report. The other quality is the quality of the care situation, which usually means foster carers and foster families. The people who do that job in our country and do it well are absolutely amazing. I have visited some of them individually and met others, and I know that it takes a certain kind of person, with a certain kind of dedication and a whole lot of love to do that work over a number of years for children who have no one else. There are some fantastic carers out there and they know what those children need. We know that is true: we have evidence of it and we met some of those carers, and I have certainly met some in my constituency.
	Those people do an extraordinary job, but there needs to be more of them. They are not well supported. The care is very patchy indeed across the 150 local authorities in our land, which is one of the great problems of care. We need to get rid of that patchiness, so that every child in every local authority can have good quality care.

Ann Coffey: rose—

Barry Sheerman: In a moment.
	The problem is the old problem: that those people are not supported well. The Government have rejected our recommendation that there should be a national framework for the kind of support that a carer receives. Support is meagre in some local authorities and more generous in others, but it is unknowable. People genuinely do not know where they stand. When a child is taken away from someone whose profession is caring—it is what they do and where their income comes from—they lose their income. They do not get any income back until another child appears or the original child comes back because the return to the birth family was not successful.
	There has to be a system that better assures those who want to come into caring that they will be well supported. They do not go into it because it pays a fortune, but they ought to be adequately rewarded. They must also be supported, because working with difficult children who kick over the traces can be a stressful job. They also need back-up from the professional social work contact that keeps them supported and on the right road.

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is quite right to mention the important role that social workers play in backing up foster parents. A point that was made strongly to the Committee concerned a child's need for a good relationship with their social worker, which could help if they had an unsatisfactory relationship with their foster parents. In my constituency, the children's social workers who deal with child protection are each carrying 20 cases at the moment, and those who deal with children in need are carrying 33. This is partly because of a huge increase in the number of children in Slough. The situation is pretty unsatisfactory. What would my hon. Friend say to the Government about ensuring that the resources are made available to places such as Slough in order to provide enough good social workers to deal with this issue?

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She will know that we made a recommendation for a cap on the number of cases that such social workers should carry, and we have developed that argument further in the new inquiry.
	This is also a question of recruitment and support. We found that the role of the carer in the substitute family was quite mysterious in some places. It was unclear how they got into the work, how they had been recruited and how they were maintained in the profession that they had chosen. The process was very professional in some local authority areas that I visited, and not very good in others. In many of our inquiries, one of the great dangers that we find is cases being thrown into the agency pot. The most horrific term that I have come across—and the idea that I am most worried about—is the "spot purchase" of placements. I find it horrible that there is a market in which someone with an emergency case can purchase a placement through an agency. No one can guarantee where such placements are going to be. They are often miles from the child's school or from the kin family, and sometimes within a different local authority area. The spot purchasing of placements in foster care is extremely worrying; it is the mark of a failure in the system.

Ann Coffey: Does my hon. Friend agree that a similar problem exists in residential care? Stockport is a net importer of children from outside the area—the figure is the third highest in the country—and the cost of such placements is astronomical. The homes advertise for children with difficulties or problems such as antisocial behaviour. Do you think that there is a problem with ensuring that those children are getting the quality of care that is offered by the homes? Is it not probable that some of the homes are making an undue profit and not putting the money that they get for looking after those children back into paying better wages to their workers and providing better training for them?

Barry Sheerman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that it is time for one of my periodic reminders to hon. Members that all remarks should be addressed to the Chair, and that the use of the word "you" should not come into it. Perhaps more importantly, from the hon. Lady's point of view, is that turning away from the microphone creates great difficulty in capturing her words for the record.

Barry Sheerman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that I have gone on for too long because I have taken a lot of interventions, so I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is about quality. There is some very good residential accommodation, some in the independent sector and some run by local authorities. One cannot judge it purely on the basis of which sector it is in: we found no evidence that private was bad and local authority good. There is good and bad in all institutional care, and there was also evidence of good agencies supplying places and finding foster homes. It is, however, completely unpredictable. In our report, we stated that the quality of care that a child gets should not be a question of luck. We talk about postcode lotteries, but this should not be up to luck. Children should be guaranteed a first-class service anywhere in the country. I would not say that about many aspects of the policy area, but vulnerable children deserve that commitment.
	This has been one of the most enjoyable reports that my Committee has produced. We enjoyed it because we felt that we were breaking a path and adding value—in other words, doing the things that a Select Committee does at its best. The Government have responded positively to some of our recommendations, but, as ever, they have not done enough and not acted quickly enough. As the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said earlier, there is not enough sense of urgency that the culture needs to change quickly. Improvements have taken place slowly over a number of years, but this has not happened fast enough and they have not been effective enough to get rid of the terrible situation in which what happens to a child is a question of luck.

Derek Twigg: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the report. I was not on the Committee when that work was done. A key issue is what happens when children leave care and are transferred. Will he say a little about that? I feel that a lot of work still needs to be done on managing the massive transition when children leave care to go into the outside world.

Barry Sheerman: I was going to leave out that section of my speech, because I have been speaking for too long, but I shall mention the subject briefly. Children in middle-class, better-off homes often hang around and seem to take a long time to leave home—I do not know whether you have had this experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Sometimes they stay until they are in their late 20s or—in the case of some of my colleagues—their 30s. The link to the family certainly goes on for a hell of a long time. I celebrate that and love it, especially in the case of my four children.
	So why should children in care be kicked out into the world at 16 with very little support? Some of them are put into rented accommodation in the most vulnerable parts of our towns and cities. Young girls are expected to live on their own at 16, and we have all heard evidence of the pests and pimps who know where these vulnerable young women are. It is wrong that children from troubled backgrounds are suddenly pushed out into the world and expected to live independent lives on their own at 16.
	I think that that is also true for 18-year-olds. I make myself unpopular with some hon. Members, including some Labour Members, when I say that the protection of childhood up to the age of 18 is very important. I sometimes worry that if we were to scuttle into constitutional reform that includes votes at 16, the protection of childhood could be nibbled away. The protection of childhood until 18 and the outcomes of Every Child Matters are fundamentally important, especially for looked-after children.
	In fact, I believe that the care package for such vulnerable children—to whom we owe so much—should go right through to the age of 25. I have not had time to talk about one of the weak links that we found in relation to special care, but these children are among the most troubled. They probably have many more psychological challenges than most children, and we found evidence that it took them a long time to get the psychological and psychiatric care and support that they needed from the health sector. The health sector should prioritise those children, just as they are prioritised in regard to schools admissions. They need support right through to 25, and much more support from everyone.

Bill Wiggin: I am curious: why has the hon. Gentleman chosen the age of 25 and not 21?

Barry Sheerman: Because I think children in supportive homes get that right through. It can be a very turbulent period and the figures on psychological problems experienced by children show a high level in the early 20s, going on through to 25. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is also clear in the data on psychological challenges presented to students in universities and higher education. The fact is that we owe these people support through to 25, if needed.
	I am sorry if I have taken too long to make my remarks, but it is partly because I took so many interventions. I recommend the report to the House. It is a good report; it is an all-party report; it is a report based on much hard work from the team of MPs from the three parties and also from the magnificent team of people who worked with us day in, day out—the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, the two Committee specialists and our two administrators.
	Select Committees are very important to the House. This is the 30th year of having such Committees and I currently have a hand in writing about their achievements over that time. I sometimes worry that the link between what we do in the Committees upstairs and what happens in this Chamber is not strong enough, so it has been a welcome change to have the chance to talk about a report in detail today.

David Laws: I appreciate that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I will try not to make my comments too extended in what is nevertheless an extremely important debate.
	I would like to start by congratulating the Select Committee on a thorough and thoughtful report. I also congratulate the Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on setting out so clearly the principal issues that the Committee identified and addressed. He mentioned at the beginning of his speech that Select Committee reports are sometimes very influential and sometimes perhaps overlooked by Ministers. I hope that this will be one of the reports that Ministers take very seriously, even in the areas where the Government's own response to the report is weaker than some of us would like.
	We take some cheer from the evidence of the Government's ultimate response to one of the Committee's earlier reports on testing and assessment, when the Government's initial response was overturned very rapidly in an announcement by Ministers a couple of months ago, which accepted many of the report's principal conclusions.
	The hon. Member for Huddersfield rightly started his comments by indicating that it should be no surprise to us that the outcomes for this group of young children are so poor in terms of education and most of the other proxies that we would use to measure the progress and achievements of young people. It would be astonishing if those taken into care and away from their parents were not by definition some of the most vulnerable young people in society, so we should expect their out-turns to be poorer than average.

Graham Stuart: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to suggest that current standards were acceptable, because they most certainly are not. I want to challenge him on what he has just said, because the Danish example and others show significant and massive improvement in outcomes, in comparison with those in this country, for children in precisely the same socially disadvantaged and difficult circumstances. Things do not have to be this way.

David Laws: I wonder whether I gave way to the hon. Gentleman too early; my generosity overcame me. I should have asked him to hold off for a few seconds while I made another couple of points that were highlighted by the Select Committee's report.
	Although, by definition, it would be astonishing if the performance of these young people was better than the average for the rest of the population, the principal issue we need to address is whether the outcomes are good enough, and whether more could be done for them. The striking conclusion of the report, placed prominently at the beginning of the summary, is important enough to be read into the record:
	"Despite the dedication and perseverance of social workers and carers, the outcomes and experiences of young people who have been 'looked after' remain poor. Far from compensating for their often extremely difficult pre-care experiences, certain features of the care system itself in fact make it harder for young people to succeed: they are moved frequently and often suddenly, miss too much schooling, and are left to fend for themselves at too early an age."
	Those are the legitimate concerns that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises, and I believe that we could and should be doing far better as a country in addressing those young people's needs.
	My experience as a constituency MP with this segment of the population—the 60,000 young people, a large number of whom are in care—tally very much with the report's conclusions and with the principal areas of concern that the hon. Gentleman set out in his speech a few moments ago. Those are the issues that I would like to touch on today. My concerns fall into four categories.
	The first relates to judgments about when and in what circumstances young people should go into care—an issue of some controversy to which I shall return, and I expect that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) will want to comment on it later if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about whether we always make the right judgments about when young people should be removed from what are often very chaotic home environments and taken into care.
	The second category relates to the quality of the care provided. The Select Committee has highlighted some weaknesses in our existing system and some experiences in other countries that we could learn from. Too often there is a shortage of placements or their quality is not good. Thirdly, there are concerns about the services available—educational and those provided by our social services departments—to young people in care.
	Finally, there are crucial issues, which the hon. Member for Huddersfield raised towards the end of his speech, about the support provided for young people beyond the age of 16, 18 or even 21. His comments obviously tally very much with what is in the report, but also with my experience of the problems experienced by this cohort of youngsters when they leave care—long-term drug and mental health problems, housing difficulties and problems gaining employment, for example. I shall touch briefly on all those issues.
	I appreciate that no simple conclusion can be derived about the tendency to be either reluctant or very precipitate about when children should be taken into care. It is clear that experiences vary significantly across the country and that different judgments are made in different areas. The hon. Member for Huddersfield was concerned about the significantly different approaches to the thresholds used to take people into care in different parts of the country. Another concluding point in the report was:
	"Large variations in care populations around the country seem to indicate that there is no consensus about the role of care in services for vulnerable children. We are convinced that in some respects the potential of the care system to make a positive difference to children's lives is dismissed too readily, but we are also concerned by how widely the quality of children's experiences in care varies, and how uneven are the experiences".
	My own experiences as a constituency MP have confirmed the understandable reluctance to take young people away from their parents and into care; we all recognise that. Sometimes, however, there is a failure to appreciate the truly chaotic, frightening and neglectful circumstances that many young people experience in the home environment. We would all like to keep as many young people as possible with their parents—that will always be true for the overwhelming majority—but sadly, some young people are brought up in deeply uncaring and unloving circumstances. That is sometimes because their own parents were brought up in the same environment, do not have parenting skills and did not receive a good example of how to discharge parental responsibilities from their own parents. The more serious cases involve direct abuse rather than simply neglect.
	What is needed is a willingness to acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield pointed out, for this minority of young people a high-quality care system —if we can create it—may well be a better option than any of the options that tend to be available in a home environment. As the Select Committee has observed, there is a reluctance to put young people into care, not just because of a shortage of places, but sometimes because of the financial consequences, or even because of an almost ideological belief that the best possible outcome is for children to remain with their parents. I think the most important point made in the Committee's report is that the home environment is not always the best environment for young people.
	The second issue that I want to raise is the quality of care and placements. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, placements with individuals who have a real commitment to and passion for young people, and who are willing to provide them with security for many years, are in very short supply. Many of the placements available are not of the quality that we would want to see. When we meet people who were in care as children, we tend to find that they experienced a large number of placements and a great deal of instability during a period when the state, or local authorities, should have been responsible for their care. It is not surprising that some individuals are reluctant to place young people in care if they fear that it will not provide the love and stability that those young people need if they are to thrive.
	We must be more imaginative. We must study the experiences of those in other countries in order to establish whether we can create settings that provide the stability described by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. They may have to contain a number of other youngsters, although I was surprised by the hon. Gentleman's reference to the large number of young people in settings in countries such as Denmark—11, 12, 14 or 15. I should have thought that the number of children in multiple settings ought to be very much lower.
	We must ensure that the quality of the social workers who support young people and their families is high, and that they experience consistency and stability. The hon. Member for Huddersfield spoke of a rapid turnover of social workers and of multiple contacts. It is not surprising that young people who may have had very unpleasant experiences in the home environment before being taken into care, and who feel unloved and unsupported, will also feel that society is not resolving their problems and giving them the stability that they need if a multiplicity of individuals are responsible for their care in the new home setting, or if a multiplicity of social workers cause relationships to be repeatedly forged and then broken. Those who experience a multiplicity of both social workers and home environments will feel that no one remains committed to them as individuals, and that no one can create the confidence and belief in their own importance and value that they will need if they are to thrive in society.
	The third issue that concerns me—the hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned it as well—is education. In general, the educational performance of children in care has been, and still is, extremely poor. Although it has improved slightly over the past five to 10 years, it is still well below average. We need a better system of funding to target disadvantage throughout the education system.
	I was pleased to see in the education White Paper the other day a reference to our proposal for a pupil premium to direct additional money towards youngsters with high levels of disadvantage and deprivation. The children whom we are discussing would clearly have the strongest claim of almost any group of youngsters for a particularly high premium to ensure that the educational establishments that they attend have the necessary resources to deliver not only the additional educational support and catch-up that they may require, but the wider support that will enable them to thrive in a school environment. I hope that if the Government seriously intend to pursue the idea of a pupil premium, they will consider that idea carefully as the review of the funding formula concludes early in 2010, and before they announce their final decisions.
	There have been some useful experiences recently in an attempt to tackle one of the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Huddersfield: the fact that young people are frequently moved between different local authority areas, and also—although the hon. Gentleman did not mention this explicitly—between different educational establishments. That can prove extremely disruptive. A number of local authorities have pursued effectively the idea of a "virtual head teacher" with overarching responsibility for children in care, who would follow their progress to ensure that their educational needs were met and that their support remained consistent even when, regrettably, they had to move from one local authority area to another.
	A particularly crucial question, and one that it is easy to neglect, is what happens to youngsters after they leave their care settings, often at the age of 16, but sometimes later. I share the surprise and dissatisfaction expressed by the hon. Member for Huddersfield at the frequent absence of a follow-through system of care. I am amazed at the lack of support for young people: the failure to secure appropriate housing, the lack of ongoing support for those with mental health and drug abuse problems, and the lack of assistance for those who wish to become employed.
	As the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, one reason for our problems with children in care is that many enter the system late in the day. Not all of them have been in care and receiving support for a decade or more; some have experienced a chaotic and unstable set of circumstances, and have not gone into care until their mid or late teens. The assumption that they will be in a position to fend for themselves, to secure employment and to manage their own housing arrangements simply because they have reached the age of adulthood—whether that is deemed to be 16 or 18—is deeply flawed. In theory the system is supposed to provide an additional measure of support beyond the age of 16 or 18, but in practice that happens all too rarely.
	Let me end by saying that I have welcomed the opportunity to debate the Select Committee's report.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Laws: I will give way one last time.

Graham Stuart: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I apologise for intervening as he was winding up his speech. I wanted to ask him about the transition from being in care to being outside it. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield that support should remain available until these young people reach the age of 25? Is that a suitable age? Last week or the week before, we met a group of social workers from around London who told us that it was not uncommon for councils effectively to withdraw support from people as young as 15. If 15-year-olds from chaotic backgrounds are being left without support by councils, we need to do something about it.

David Laws: My response to that important question is that, to a large extent, the support needs to be designed around the needs of those youngsters. Some who have been in care since an early age, or have been cared for very effectively, may not need the service to continue until they are 25, but I should have thought that most children in care would need it to continue—in a real and effective way—until they reach a greater age than is covered by the present arrangements. Obviously, individuals who become adults—whatever age we use to define that state—will have ongoing needs and there would be an expectation that if those needs were identified, they would continue to be met whether or not those youngsters had been in care or not. I suggest that there should be a younger threshold age, but that the youngsters who still have problems at that age—to whom the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) was alluding—should be able to access services. There should be a proper bridge into those services regardless of the age that the youngsters have reached.
	This has been an important debate on an excellent report. I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister, who, I hope, will assure us—not just on the points addressed in the Government's response but in some other areas where the response was weaker or more ambiguous—that the Government are intent on dealing with the issues raised by the Select Committee.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). I begin by paying tribute to the Select Committee for its excellent report. It is literally a weighty report. If we were to weigh Select Committee reports, I am sure we would find that it was the weightiest of last year. The Committee seems to have begun its deliberations in March 2008, a long time ago. I pay tribute to all the members who participated. I only wish when we had Home Affairs Committee debates that quite so many Committee members turned up. Perhaps this is the template for other Select Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), and my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)— [ Interruption. ] Yes, my hon. Friends the Members for Halton (Derek Twigg) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) have left the Chamber, but all those Members were here, and I am very impressed by that.
	I feel as if I am straying on to the territory of another Select Committee so I will be very brief. There is really only one aspect of policy that I wish to bring to the attention of the House. The Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, enjoyed the report so much and is ready to be tempted to look at other aspects of policy concerning looked-after children. I wonder whether his Committee might look at the issue of children in care who are here as a result of human trafficking—children brought here for the specific purpose of exploitation by human traffickers, who arrive at children's homes and disappear to carry on and involve themselves in criminal activities.

Meg Munn: My right hon. Friend raises an extremely important issue, but may I point out that it is one of the problems that the social work profession faces? As society develops, new problems arise and social workers—who are already dealing with a wide range of complex issues, as we have heard—are expected to take on the kind of issues and problems about which he is talking. He will know from the work that he and his Committee have done in this area that the specific needs of those young people are different from those of other children about whom we have been talking. It is perhaps not surprising that the current system is failing these children, because the social workers have not been trained in this new phenomenon, and the issue of extra resources and training becomes even more acute.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that, when she was a distinguished Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for consular services, that was part of her portfolio. She gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on those matters. The concern is that there is not sufficient training to deal with these issues. We need to ensure that that happens. In a sense it is not just the responsibility of one Department, although the Government could spare only one Minister for the debate. It is a question of various Departments acting together. It would be helpful—I make this offer to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield—in the spirit of joined-up Parliament if members of the Home Affairs Committee met members of the Children, Schools and Families Committee and other Committees with an interest in order to report about these matters where they cross boundaries.
	Between April and December 2008 a total of 957 suspected victims of child trafficking were picked up by local authorities. Of that number, more than 400 came from Afghanistan and 200 from Africa. Kent county council revealed that out of a total of 474 children taken into care in the eight months to the end of 2008, 86 went missing. The largest proportion of trafficked children in fact arrives in Kent.
	In Hillingdon, which handles children trafficked through Heathrow airport, 27 of 285 children have been reported missing. At least 77 Chinese children have gone missing after being taken into the care of the local authority at Heathrow. In 2008, the Serious Organised Crime Agency disrupted a suspected child trafficking ring operating through Manchester airport in which Chinese children were routed through Italy and ended up in the UK. That was the conclusion of the Home Affairs Committee report into human trafficking. We did not go into great detail about child trafficking because we were dealing by and large with adult trafficking, but we estimated that 330 child victims will be trafficked into the UK each year. About 60 per cent of suspected child victims in local authority care go missing and are not subsequently found.
	Our worry, for the very reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) has mentioned, was that the local authorities were concentrating on the "home market"—children from the UK—and were not paying sufficient attention to those who arrived here and, within hours, went missing from their home. The information put into the public domain by  The Guardian suggested that those Chinese children, having arrived here, were given mobile phones, were able to ring the adults who brought them into the country, walked out quite openly from the home and then disappeared into some part of the UK never to be found again. Unless a very important relationship is developed between the local authority and those who deal with children at our ports of entry including Heathrow—the responsibility of the UK Border Agency—and that is monitored so that we know who is in and who is out of a local authority home, that seems to be the fate of children who are human trafficked into this country.
	That is why the Home Affairs Committee will be looking at the subject again next Tuesday, to assess the Government's response to our report, which we published earlier this year. We asked the Government specifically to take appropriate steps in order to protect children who had come from abroad, who have the added problem of not being able to speak English. There may be the greatest training in the world for social workers dealing with these issues, but if such children cannot access translation services they will not be able to explain why they came to the country.
	There is also the situation of children who come from elsewhere in the EU, and we know of the important work being done by the Metropolitan police human trafficking unit through Europol. In particular, there is an initiative for the Romanian children, who are largely from the Roma community in that country, who were trafficked into this country and then disappeared from care. They ended up on Oxford street and began to get involved in begging operations.
	I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) is not present, because if there is an expert on human, and especially child, trafficking in this House, it is almost certainly him. He has told the House of his activities when he has been to Oxford street with the Metropolitan police. He saw children being apprehended, and there was nothing that the police could do other than put them into care. They then went missing from care again, and ended up back on the streets. Clearly, these issues go beyond the narrow remit of the Select Committee report and the estimate motion before the House, but they are within the remit of the Government as a whole, and I know that the Minister will want to bring them to the attention of her colleagues in other Departments, because we cannot deal with them merely on a departmental basis.
	My final point is on the human trafficking unit that is operated so effectively by the Metropolitan police. As we concluded our inquiry into human trafficking, we took evidence from that unit, and it informed us that its funding was to be cut. It said that the funding had been reduced over a number of years and that it would end up with no funding from the Government. During Prime Minister's Question Time a few weeks ago, I raised that with the Prime Minister, and he stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the money is not being cut but being increased because of the important work done by the Government on human trafficking. I was delighted by that statement.
	I asked the Prime Minister about the issue again when he came back from the European Council meeting in Brussels, because, as the Minister will know, the Swedish presidency—like the Czech presidency—has decided to make human trafficking a key priority. The Prime Minister said that the issue had been discussed at Brussels. I asked him again whether the money for the human trafficking unit had been increased, and he said yes. Before the Minister comes to reply, I hope there will be sufficient time for her to get a message to the Home Office to find out whether that is, in fact, correct, because the replies I have received to the letters I have sent suggest that nobody has received this money which the Prime Minister thinks has been increased. I am sure that if the Prime Minister announces it at the Dispatch Box, it will happen, but even if the money has not yet been received by the organisation it would be nice to know that it is on its way—in the post or about to be transferred—because it is crucial in our fight against human trafficking in this country.

Bill Wiggin: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I think that the Prime Minister should answer his question. The Prime Minister does seem to have problems with increases in spending. He has said, for instance, that
	"total spending will continue to rise, and it will be a zero per cent. rise in 2013-14."—[ Official Report, 1 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 294.]
	Perhaps that is the spending rise that the right hon. Gentleman was told was taking place. He is absolutely right to push on that point. I wish him every luck, because I agree that it is extremely important.
	We all want our children to get the best start in life by having the right support, food, nutrition, shelter, education, mentoring and emotional support. That is what is needed in order for them to grow up and develop into responsible, independent adults. Looked-after children consistently do not get the same levels of support and care that children in families receive. Looked-after children under-achieve in education—just one in eight gets five good GCSEs. They are twice as likely to be convicted or cautioned; almost a quarter of prisoners have been in care. They are also four to five times more likely to have mental health problems; one third of homeless people have been in care. One fifth of women who leave care between the ages of 16 and 19 become pregnant within one year, compared with just one in 20 in the general population. They are also far more vulnerable to drug abuse, school exclusions, sexual exploitation, truancy and other symptoms linked to social breakdown. They are also more likely to be NEETs— not in education, employment or training.
	Being in care affects young people's life chances, and the Select Committee report into looked-after children has highlighted some of the weaknesses that need to be addressed. On our estates and in our communities, we are seeing second generation looked-after children whose parents have also been through the care system. There are three crucial areas for improving the life chances of looked-after children: education, family, and the role played by the local authority, social services and their partners. When I read Dickens, I felt that things had moved so far forward, yet there is still a failure to deliver the sort of 21st-century changes that we all want and believe in. This is, therefore, a tremendously important subject.
	We need to improve access to education, because that is important and looked-after children need better chances and opportunities to succeed. Education and individual learning plans may need to be more tailor-made to suit individuals in order to encourage them to remain in education or some other form of learning or training. Having a good educational foundation can make a huge difference to job opportunities, as well as to a young person's confidence and self-esteem. Young people who have these challenging backgrounds need to be in environments where they feel valued and where their talents can be nurtured. The development of academies—and academies with residential facilities—will help to drive up the educational standards of those who are looked after. Mentoring in school makes a huge difference, and we also need to look at developing the role and expertise of school governors in matters concerning looked-after children so that they can oversee the performance of schools and how they are educating these young people.
	In Herefordshire, an education liaison support service is available to children and young persons looked after by the council. It offers advice and support to children and parents, it develops individual support packages and it provides information and resources to carers. Herefordshire has delivered positive outcomes, including the fact that 92 per cent. of its young people aged 16 or over leaving care managed to obtain a qualification, which compares with the average in England of 53 per cent. That makes the council the top-performing authority in England.
	Herefordshire's looked-after children are also healthier and they have lower levels of truancy from school and fewer criminal convictions than average. The council has a good record, despite receiving—this is a real shame—the third lowest school grant per pupil and despite the council's grant being 17 per cent. lower than the national average per head. Despite that financial disadvantage, the council is still achieving a fantastic outcome for these particularly vulnerable young people.
	Supporting families early on can prevent children from going into care, and we should take measures to prevent family breakdown. Where possible, and when it is safe and appropriate, we should try to keep families together. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) made the important point that that will not always be appropriate, and that is also mentioned is the Select Committee report. However, where it is safe and appropriate, that is what we should try to do. Strong families support vulnerable children and reduce the risk of children needing to go into care. I believe that the Government could do a great deal more to support families; parents are currently financially better off living apart, and that cannot be right.
	Health visitors can help families, particularly those with problems and those struggling with parenthood. Local authorities, health care professionals and schools need to be equipped with the expertise to be able to identify those families where there is serious and wilful neglect; those families where the parents and guardians are a danger to children and the children need to be brought into care; and those circumstances in which the parents need help and support to improve their parenting skills. There is a difference between the circumstances of a single mother with post-natal depression who is struggling to look after her children, wants to be a good parent and needs support, and cases such as those of baby P or Victoria Climbié where the children were the victims of despicable and sickening acts of neglect, harm, violence and brutality. The people committing those acts need to be identified earlier and they should feel the full force of the law.
	I come to local authorities, social services and their partners. Social services in local authorities throughout the country have a very difficult role in identifying when they need to intervene and the action that they need to take. It is through contact with social services and health and education professionals that vulnerable children can be identified and early intervention can take place.
	In these discussions, there is considerable emphasis on the importance of corporate parenting and multi-agency and partnership working, and that is an important framework. But however good the systems are on paper, we need to ensure that the individuals and professionals delivering the support services on the front line can take difficult decisions and feel confident in exercising their judgment.
	Inspections are important to raising standards. Can the Minister reassure me that the new Ofsted unannounced inspections, for which 30 minutes' notice is given, will not interfere with an authority's delivery of services? If a children's services director can get a call from the Ofsted inspectors saying that they are just 30 minutes away, we need to ensure that the inspections are done in a way that does not cause authorities to panic, and that while the inspectors are present for two days they are not interfering in the work of social services and causing resources to be used serving them rather than young people and families. Giving inspectors access to files and making staff available for interviews are important to assessing an authority's performance, but we must also recognise that that is time and resource-consuming for the authority. I hope that the Minister and Ofsted will be able to ensure that inspections are carried out in a sensitive and appropriate manner. It is good to have quick inspections, but they must be done right.
	Building strong and long-term relationships between looked-after children and those involved in delivering their care is essential. Children going through the care system can feel unsupported when their carers change on a regular basis, and the answer is as much down to the professionalism of staff as any legislative requirement. One area that needs strengthening is the support given to young people in the transition period from leaving care to becoming an independent adult. I asked the Committee Chairman about the need for support up to the age of 25, and his answer was compelling. Children who have spent most of their lives going through the care system can suddenly feel abandoned once they are no longer of school age and no longer within that system, whereas children who have not gone through the care system continue to get family support for many years, through university and beyond.
	One final aspect for the Government to consider is how often the child is consulted. Time and again, we see cases in which problems could have been avoided if only those involved had asked the child. The fear seems to be that children will not tell the truth, but in my experience it does not take Einstein to tell when a child is telling the truth. We need to be much better at listening to children as well as providing the support that the whole House agrees is so vital for these vulnerable young people.

David Chaytor: I think that this is the first time during my time as a Member that we have had a debate on looked-after children in the Chamber. There may have been short Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall, but this debate indicates a growing level of interest in and understanding of the importance of this group of young people and the historic neglect by the state of their interests and welfare. I hope that the Committee's report has contributed to that increased understanding and concern.

Tim Loughton: On a point of information, we have never before had a debate on vulnerable and looked-after children in Government time, but we have had debates on that subject in Opposition time.

David Chaytor: I congratulate the Opposition, but I also congratulate the Government on eventually finding time for this debate. Of course, it builds on the significant improvement in Government policy in recent years, which has moved the interests of looked-after children much further up the political agenda.
	These children are often the poorest of the poor. They and their families are at the bottom of the pile. In contrast with most children, whose interests, welfare, health and education are universally popular among the population at large, looked-after children, especially when they reach their teenage years, are frequently reviled, stigmatised, discriminated against and scapegoated by the adult population. That is the fact of the matter. It shows the difficulty that we have—as local authorities, health authorities and Governments—in re-establishing this group as victims.
	The figures are quite stark. Other Members have mentioned some of the statistics, and still only 14 per cent. of looked-after children gain five A to Cs at GCSE. Among the population as a whole, that figure is 65 per cent. Only 46 per cent. of looked-after children get past key stage 2 level 4 in English, compared with 81 per cent. of the population. The most striking figure, of which I was only reminded earlier today, is that whereas in the population as a whole 3 per cent. of children have statements, 28 per cent. of looked-after children have statements; the figure is nine times higher in that group of young people.
	Let me mention two brief anecdotes that seem to me to encapsulate some of the difficulties experienced by these young people, and perhaps how the state's approach has changed. One of my earliest and most enjoyable experiences as an MP in my constituency was an awards evening for looked-after children in Bury. The children and their families were invited to the town hall for a wonderful party and celebration of their achievements organised by the then director of education. Every child received recognition in some shape or form, whether they were on their way to university and celebrating their A-level results or whether they had very modest achievements. The evening culminated in music, dance, a disco and plenty of food and drink for the children, their families and the teachers and support workers who had worked with them.
	I vividly remember one of the most outgoing of those children, a young woman, partly Afro-Caribbean, who came to talk to me about Members of Parliament, Prime Minister's questions and Tony Blair. She had watched Prime Minister's questions on the television and wanted to know what it was like. I thought, "What an amazing young woman. She's come through the most difficult experiences—moved around from foster family to foster family—yet she still has, at the age of 14 or 15, this high degree of optimism. She will probably survive and have an interesting future."
	Four or five years later, that young woman came to my advice surgery, heavily pregnant, dressed in a way that could only be described as eccentric, clearly under the influence of some substance and clearly with mental health problems. She came to ask me for assistance, but did not quite know what assistance she needed. She came also to complain about social workers, but was not quite able to put her finger on the source of the complaint. She wanted to complain about the national health service, but was not able to explain where it was not dealing with her needs. Her experience over the four or five years between the age of 14 and the age of 18 or 19 seemed to me to be almost a metaphor for the way in which the state had failed so many young people in care.
	My second brief anecdote concerns an experience the Committee had when we were compiling the report. We met, in the Jubilee Room, a group of young people in care who had come to tell us about their experiences. They provided informal evidence to our Committee and they were incredibly resilient, confident and outgoing young people. They were older; they were aged 18, 19, 20 and 21. We listened carefully to what they had to say.
	There was one thing that I occurred to me as we spoke to them—and I reiterate the comments made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) about the importance of listening to children. I found it remarkable how astute they were about how their experience had gone wrong, pointing out the awfulness of the instability of not having a regular social worker and of frequent moves from one foster family or care home to another. They demonstrated that, in spite of that, with the right kind of support—they had all had significant support from voluntary organisations and charities, and particularly from committed individuals—children in care can come through and can survive. In their late teens and early 20s, those young people seemed to be getting their lives together. The message of that second experience was positive, because attitudes and policies have changed in the past few years. The result is that young people in care get a slightly higher priority and a slightly better share of the cake.
	One reflection of that is the document published in May by the Department for Children, Schools and Families which tackled head-on the need to improve educational attainment in schools. I very much welcome the proposals that every local authority should have a virtual head for looked-after children, and that every school should have a designated teacher for them. Other proposals include ensuring that all looked-after children have a personal education plan and get the one-to-one and small-group tuition that are so important for those who are vulnerable and uncertain about their relationships, and who find it difficult to cope in larger numbers.
	I welcome the fact that the Government have already introduced the £500 educational allowance pledge. It is not yet clear how that is working or exactly who is responsible for allocating the money, but it is crucial if we are to give looked-after young people the benefits, advantages and extra-curricular activities that are taken as read by most average families in this country. Above all, I welcome the changes in the most recent code on school admissions, which prioritise the needs of looked-after children and are central to giving their schooling greater stability. The Government's track record, in recent times and in that latest document, shows that they are moving very much in the right direction.
	However, education is only part of the issue. As I and other hon. Members have noted, the stability of placements and the continuity of social workers are crucial. In this country, we have had problems with both foster and residential care. As often happens in public policy, the pendulum swings from side to side according to fashion.
	The Committee looked at what happens in other countries, and at the variable experience in different parts of the UK. It seemed to us that there is no perfect or agreed model for what goes on, and that there should be no targets for the numbers of children to be placed in or removed from residential care. Both foster and residential care can be provided in a way that is absolutely suitable to children's needs, so we need to look at the matter as a spectrum rather than as an either/or problem.
	In our inquiry, the Committee saw some very good examples of residential care, although not in the UK. Sadly, we had to go to Denmark to see them, but that does not mean that we cannot reach the same standards here. I know that there has been dramatic change in the UK in recent years; the old large and impersonal children's homes have been dismantled, while smaller units with a more family-oriented atmosphere and approach have been developed. That is all for the good, but let us not say that there is a unique model that must be applied in all circumstances. We need a continuum of care as well as flexibility, so we should not try rigidly to impose any particular model according to the fashion of the day.
	Underlying many of the criticisms of some aspects of foster care—and certainly of residential care—is the question of how we recruit people to the wider children's work force. We know that, as a nation, we have a problem with the low status allocated to staff working in pre-school settings, residential homes or children's social work. The only conclusion to be drawn is that, if we give such jobs low status—as a profession, or in respect of the opportunities for progression, the qualifications required for entry or pay and remuneration—it is because we as a nation do not recognise sufficiently the importance of the health, care and welfare of children.
	Other countries in Europe are, frankly, light years ahead of us. Until we can put the interests of children absolutely at the heart of public policy and reflect that by ensuring that some of the brightest, best qualified and most highly motivated young adults want to work with children, we will never bring about the cultural change that we need. The Chairman of the Committee has already pointed out that we felt that that was such an important part of our inquiry that it has led to a further inquiry specifically on the training of social workers that will also produce some interesting recommendations.
	The selection of not just children's social workers but people who work in residential care settings should be considered. My recollection is that our inquiry was quite specific: we felt that anyone working in a residential care setting should require a level 3 national vocational qualification. There is much work to do, perhaps more formally, in improving the training and support available to those who take on the role of foster carer.
	I want to make two further comments, the first of which is about the whole question of leaving care, on which hon. Members have commented. One of the biggest gaps in our provision even now is that so many children leave their care setting too early. They finish up on the streets. They finish up sucked into crime, drugs and prostitution. They finish up becoming disoriented and living in inappropriate housing, next to inappropriate neighbours. The Government are greatly interested in that at the moment. Many of the charities that work in the field are calling for a national housing standard for care leavers.
	I want to compare—I do not think that this comparison has been made before—the way in which we as a nation consider housing for young people in care with how we consider housing for undergraduates. Every young person who goes to university has the opportunity to stay in a university hall of residence—not absolute luxury, but basic, clean, comfortable, sheltered, protected and regulated accommodation. If we can look after the interests of the 43 per cent. of young people who go to university by offering them appropriate housing with regulated standards, why cannot we support the interests of the much smaller group of young people who are in care with the same kind of standards for their housing when they move to adulthood? So the contrast between the accommodation that many 16, 17 and 18-year-olds live in, often by themselves and next door to some pretty unpleasant adults, and the environment in which our university undergraduates live, in their halls of residence, is absolutely striking.
	With the Every Child Matters agenda and the proposals made in the "Care Matters" White Paper two years ago, we have brought about impressive integration in children's services. Certainly, social care and schools are working far more closely together than ever before, but there are two gaps. I am deeply concerned about whether the health service fully recognises the difficulties of looked-after children as a category. I am not absolutely convinced that GPs—obviously, GPs vary enormously—are fully locked into the Every Child Matters agenda. It seems to me from my experience and from listening to some of the evidence given to the Select Committee that GPs are still protecting their professional practices and less willing than other professionals to co-operate with regard to the interests of children.
	I was interested in the very important point about child trafficking made by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. I also flag up the importance of policing. I had the interesting experience two years ago of spending some time with Greater Manchester police, touring the various towns of Greater Manchester at different times of the day and seeing a remarkable number of young people—it was impossible to say whether or not they were looked-after children—drifting and hanging around in the most unusual places and getting up to the most appalling activities at all hours of the day and night. Many of them would have been children who had been in care, but I do not think that the police have yet understood the importance of having a slightly different response where that is the case. To reiterate a point on the important issue of children who are trafficked, I point out that if there is to be a joint inquiry by the Children, Schools and Families Committee and the Home Affairs Committee, it would be fruitful to explore the relationship between the criminal justice system and looked-after children.
	Finally, I hope that the report will lead to more than just short-term improvements. So much of our history of responding to issues related to looked-after children, child abuse and the murder of children has been a history of knee-jerk responses. An incident happens, the public are outraged, the Government respond and then we forget about it. I hope that we have moved on from those days, and that the report's influence on Government policy can be much longer-lasting. Our Government are starting to take the issues far more seriously than any Government have done for many years. I welcome the progress made in recent years.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I point out that, although it looks as though we have all the time in the world, and not too many people are seeking to catch my eye, it would be helpful if hon. Members would remember that we have a second debate after this one. Members ought to remember that when they make their contributions.

Paul Holmes: I should like to start by praising the work of Select Committees, although perhaps that is slightly self-indulgent, as I am a member of the Children, Schools and Families Committee. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who chairs the Committee, touched on the subject slightly, but did not go into too much detail in order to spare his blushes. Recently, a national newspaper looked at the work of Select Committees and praised three in particular, including the Education and Skills Committee, now the Children, Schools and Families Committee, and its Chairman. That highlighted the very effective work that Select Committees, and three of them in particular, have done in recent years.
	The Select Committee is a good model; it has worked very well since the big expansion of Select Committees in 1979. There has been talk of reforming the way in which this place works to make the job of scrutinising the Executive more effective. Hopefully the expansion of the role and powers of Select Committees is one of the measures that will be taken in the next year or so. It will mean that 30 years on from the '79 expansion and experiment, there will be a further expansion of the work of Select Committees. The Select Committee report that we are considering is a good example of what Select Committees can do so well.
	A number of hon. Members referred to the fact that in a normal family situation—whatever "normal" is—children do not, at the age of 16, 18 or 21, leave and never again have contact with their siblings, parents, uncles and so on. In fact, it is the norm for people to get a lot of support from their family system until they are well into their 20s, and even later. A lot of the latest stories are of children going away to university, getting jobs, getting their own place, and ending up back in the family home in their early 30s. I am a parent of three children, the eldest of whom is 24. She lives close by, but she is often not in her flat but at home, emptying the contents of my fridge, drinking my drink, watching my TV and so forth. Of course, we are always delighted to see our adult children; we are pleased that they come back to see us. That ongoing support is the norm.
	When considering the model for that strange creature, the corporate parent—the state as parent—we should very much bear in mind what the model is for a normal family. The state as parent takes on responsibility for children who come into care because they come from very abnormal family backgrounds. Some 62 per cent. of children in care have been taken into care because of direct neglect and abuse by their family. A large percentage of the other 38 per cent. of children come into care because of family dysfunction, severe illness or death in the family. They come into care because they come from the opposite of a "normal" family and family background. They have already had a traumatic experience in their life. Whether they come into care at four or 14, they have already had a difficult upbringing.
	If the state as parent is to discharge its parental duties to looked-after children, it has to run twice as fast simply to stand still. It has a moral duty to discharge those responsibilities to the best effect, and there is common, human sense in its seeking to do so. However, if we had to make a hard-nosed case to the Treasury, we could cite the pure economic sense behind it, too. The cost of not helping looked-after children—the cost of social breakdown, the cost of substance abuse, the cost of mental illness, the cost of the fact that half of prisoners under 25 years old and up to one third of prisoners of all ages have been in care, and the cost of picking up the pieces from that failure—is far greater than the cost of investing in and looking after them properly in the first place. There is an obvious moral case for discharging that duty properly, but one can make a hard-nosed economic case in Treasury terms, too.
	I am sure that the Minister, in her response to the debate, will say that much progress has been made. Indeed, the Government, in their published response to the Committee's report, agree with most of its findings and point out how they are making progress towards its objectives. They deserve praise for the progress that has been made, but we have an awful long way to go if we are to emulate what the Committee saw as the best systems in other areas. Denmark is the one that everybody has mentioned.
	The point at which one leaves care has been exhaustively discussed, so I shall not go into it, but is it 16 years old, 18, 21 or 25? It was quite shocking to hear one social worker who came to talk to the Committee two Mondays ago say that, in her authority, there was pressure not to go into any permanent arrangements or accommodation arrangements with 15-year-olds, because they are only a few months away from no longer being the authority's responsibility. The idea that 15 to 16-year-olds are already being cast adrift is outrageous. There are welcome moves to extend the leaving age, but surely it should be extended beyond 17 or 18 years old.
	Accommodation provision for young adults of 16, 17 and 18 years old is also an issue. The Government, in their response, talk about bed and breakfast being provided for somebody in that situation, and that is not suitable. Councils are now being told that they should give looked-after children priority for housing, but we keep being told that they should give many other groups priority, so we need to look at the issue of joined-up government thinking, because Government policy for the past 12 years has been not to allow council house building at all.
	Just over 4,000 council houses have been built in 12 years, and that is meaningless. The housing associations that were supposed to fill the gap have, on average, built 22,000 units of social housing per year for 12 years, when the Government's own Barker report said that 46,000 to 50,000 units were needed just to stand still—without even reducing the waiting list. Furthermore, the waiting list for social housing in general and council housing in particular has doubled nationally: it has gone up from 1 million in 1997 to almost 2 million now.
	How do councils give priority to people leaving the armed forces or looked-after children who are moving into independent accommodation? How do they give priority when their supply of social housing is totally inadequate to meet the needs of all groups—families, people with children and single mothers. Whatever the category, the massive shortage of social housing and council housing cannot meet those needs.
	I can think of examples in my constituency. I presented GCSE awards at a school a few years ago, and one girl won prizes for her fantastic GCSE artwork. Indeed, one of her paintings hangs in my office here in Westminster now. She succeeded at school despite a very difficult family background and having been in care, but at 16 years old she was about to leave school, start college and move into a council flat in one of the least desirable areas of Chesterfield. How would that 16-year-old girl get on as a young, single person, living on whatever benefits were provided, on her own, while trying to pursue her education, without the normal family support that we would expect for our children? We still have a long way to go if we are to move beyond that situation.
	I was a teacher for 22 years, so education is dear to my heart. When I was head of year and responsible for children's pastoral care, I noticed that some children would turn up in school, be around for a couple of months and then move on; they just kept moving on from their foster care placements, or whatever arrangements had been made. Years later, we heard about exactly the same thing from the children who gave evidence to the inquiry—about children who were constantly in a state of flux and moving from one place to another. The situation might be due to the difficulties in recruiting enough foster parents. That issue needs tackling, as the report says, but there might be all sorts of other reasons why such children are moving around.
	The norm in education should always be that the young person stays in their school place. That should be a priority; it is much better than their being shuffled around to a convenient place somewhere within a radius of 20 or 30 miles, which means that they keep changing school. The stability of a child's education is essential to any success that they have in exams, literacy or numeracy.
	The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) said that placing looked-after children in academies with residential places might be an answer. He may want to respond, but I should say to him that I am puzzled by that. When academies were launched, the whole concept behind them was supposed to be that they would replace failing schools, which are almost entirely in deprived areas in the inner cities. Surely the best thing for looked-after children, who come from already difficult circumstances, is for them to be given priority for school places in the best, most successful schools—not in the academies, which take over, in theory, from failing schools in the most difficult circumstances. It would be good to see priority given to giving looked-after children the best places in the best schools.

Tim Loughton: I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Surely the point is that academies take over failing schools to improve the educational chances of the people there, and although it is early to say so, their record is good. Furthermore, I am sure that he will acknowledge the importance of continuity of education in a familiar environment for the young person in care, whenever possible. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that if an academy has taken over the young person's school, they should not go there any more but attend another one in another area, I tell him that that would defeat the point.

Paul Holmes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that partial clarification. I heard what was said as meaning that academies would be the obvious, logical places for looked-after children; to me, the obvious place is the best school nearest to where the child is—that may well be the school that they already attend, of course.
	This is not a debate about education as such, but I should say that the jury is out on academies. Yesterday morning, the Select Committee spent three hours considering the academies issue. The Government's commissioned research from PricewaterhouseCoopers says that only very flimsy evidence shows that academies in general improve any more than other state schools that use other educational innovation. That issue, however, is more for a specific debate on education.

Bill Wiggin: I was referring to academies and, more importantly, to academies with residential facilities. If the hon. Gentleman checks, he will see that looked-after children who go to boarding schools achieve far better results than those who do not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look more favourably on the matter. If the academy system can deliver such an opportunity for looked-after children, I am sure that he welcomes that.

Paul Holmes: I regret the fact that boarding provision in state schools was more or less wiped out during my years of working in schools. There were, for example, two state schools in Derbyshire with boarding provision, one of which I worked at. One had disappeared before I started working at that school and the other disappeared a few years later. There is no state school with boarding provision in Derbyshire now. That is regrettable, and a move back in the other direction would be useful.
	However, I disagree with the idea that provision for looked-after children should be linked only to academies, which make up a tiny percentage of the 3,000 secondary schools in this country. As I said, the jury is out on academy schools; at least a third have had worse results since they became academies. We do not want to pin all our hopes on a totally untried and minority experiment. There are questions about providing enough support for looked-after children who have come from such difficult backgrounds given the numbers of staff available. Having worked in education for a long time, I know about the difficulty of getting access to educational psychologists, for example. In Denmark, there were incredibly well-paid, motivated, intelligent, enthusiastic child psychologists in more or less every meeting we went to, and they provide a great service. In this country, they are as rare as hens' teeth.
	We have already heard reference to whether an NVQ level 3 should be a minimum requirement for somebody working in a residential setting. The qualifications and pay of social workers are relevant issues, and the Committee is undertaking an inquiry into their training and qualifications. If we are to take this seriously, we may need to emulate many other countries across western Europe that do this so much better.
	The major unanswered question that came out of the Committee's report and still hangs there, perhaps for a future inquiry, is the balance between adoption, fostering or residential settings as the desired way of dealing with children who go into care, and what ratios there should be between those options. There are big differences between countries in how they approach this and, as we heard from the Chair of the Committee, between local authorities in Britain. Adoption is seen as one route, much more so in this country than in Denmark, where people were desperate to avoid any adoptions because they wanted to maintain the family link for as long as possible, if not for ever. They take a completely different attitude.
	On fostering, we heard evidence from several young people who, between them, had very long experience of the care system. There was some evidence of good things, but one of them told an alarming story, which was backed up by another, of being in a foster placement where the foster carer regarded it simply as a way of earning money. When there was a Christmas or birthday party, the foster child was not allowed to take part in that family event. There was a shocking example of a foster child having a separate mug in the kitchen because they could not use the family crockery. It seemed appalling that a foster carer was allowed to do that. I must emphasise that those examples are very untypical—at least, I hope so. My wife worked in social services for a long time and undertook a lot of approvals of foster parents and adoptive parents in Derbyshire. I got to know many of them in that way; some are still friends now. I have certainly never come across an example like that in Derbyshire, as an individual through my wife's work or as a politician. It was shocking to hear, only a few months ago when we were taking evidence, that those things were happening. We need to look at the standards and requirements for foster care placements across the country.
	On residential settings, the old, large, crumbling Victorian institution housing large numbers of children is very much a thing of the past. We saw some good examples in Denmark, but to be fair we saw some in England too, when we visited places just outside London. The nearest residential care home in Chesterfield, which is about a quarter of a mile up the road from where I live, is a modern house that has no more than six people at any one time. That is very much the direction in which residential settings have gone in this country, although there is still progress to be made. Another question raised by the Committee and left hanging is the point at which we intervene, initiate care proceedings, send children back to their families, and so forth. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who is hoping to speak shortly, might disagree with me about this. I am not saying what I would prefer, merely that these are huge questions raised by the Committee's report. In Denmark, the key appeared to be the desire to maintain the family link, even when the child was taken into care. We were surprised to hear—the Chair referred to this example—about a child who was in care because he had been sexually abused by one of his parents, yet those parents were still invited along to birthday, Christmas and end-of-school events to maintain a link with the child, whereas in this country we would tend to cut that link quite sharply. It was suggested that that was one of the main reasons for the success of the Danish system.
	We should not cherry-pick when we look at different ways of doing things in other countries; we have to look at the whole picture. In Denmark, we saw not only that emphasis on trying to maintain the family link at all costs, but an emphasis on intervening much earlier, with twice as many children per head of population being taken into care than in the UK. Denmark has the highest rate in Europe of taking children into care, so there is a different approach altogether. We saw that all people involved in child care were much more highly trained and paid than those in this country, so the whole system was very different. We should examine the pattern rather than pick out one of four or five matters that were different.
	We have heard arguments about whether we are too slow to intervene in this country. When the Committee extended its inquiry because of the baby P case, Andrew Flanagan, chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said that children were being left in danger at home. Wes Cuell, the NSPCC's director of children services, said that children
	"stay in dangerous families and end up getting killed."
	An Ofsted review reported that thousands of vulnerable children were at risk because councils did not move fast enough to protect them.
	Some of the social workers who talked to us said something that I have also heard in years gone by from my wife and her colleagues—that we take too far the approach that families must always be kept together. It was suggested in the inquiry into the baby P case that the emphasis was on the mother's needs and how we could support her, and that we lost sight of baby P. Whether we intervene too late is a huge question that has been left hanging in the air by the baby P inquiry, the Select Committee's report and the evidence from bodies such as the NSPCC and Ofsted.
	Educational outcomes were referred to earlier. It has been said that looked-after children get a much worse educational outcome than an equivalent 16 or 18-year-old who has had a normal family background and education. A comparison was made with Germany a couple of years ago, but because Germany intervenes sooner, and for a larger number of people, the sample is not comparable. We intervene late and for a smaller, hardcore sample of more damaged and more vulnerable children. Inevitably, their outcomes of any kind, whether alcohol abuse, educational success or mental illness, will be worse than in a larger, more normal sample of children.
	A big question has been left hanging in the air. I certainly do not expect the Minister to answer it in 30 seconds, as it probably needs a whole new Select Committee inquiry and a national debate. It is whether we intervene too late and whether we put too much emphasis on keeping children with their family at all costs, even when the cost can be death and damage to children that could have been avoided by earlier intervention, as Ofsted and the NSPCC have argued.

John Hemming: rose—

Annette Brooke: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House will have heard my earlier comments about the timing of speeches. I hope to get the last two Back Benchers in, but unless contributions are considerably shorter, one of them may miss out.

John Hemming: One of the interesting aspects of this subject is definitions. Let us take the definition of care. A child is "in care" when there is a care order in place, but even then, that child may be placed with their parents. The fact that there has been an intervention, and maybe an early one, does not necessarily mean that it is a stressful intervention with a child being put with a foster carer some distance away. We should look systematically at how families are supported, and organisations such as Home-Start are very good for that.
	When we compare different countries, it is critical that we get our definitions right, otherwise it is unclear what is going on. We take into care, through care orders, about 7,000 to 8,000 children a year.

Meg Munn: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not ignoring the children who come into care under section 20 orders, which are voluntary, and who therefore do not have care orders?

John Hemming: That is true: there are children in care under section 20 orders, and there are a few children in respite care, too. I accept that point. Of the more than 60,000 children in care, roughly a third are voluntarily put into care under section 20 orders, but I always find it a bit of a mistake to take them into account when calculating figures on adoption targets, although admittedly we do not have those targets now. One would not expect children who are on section 20 orders because their parents cannot cope with them to be adopted.
	Definitions are very important, and including those under section 20 orders we take into care about 7,000 to 8,000 children a year. The figure used to be about 5,500, according to the SSDA903 return, which goes to the Department for Children, Schools and Families every year from each local authority.
	We have to look at what is best for the children. That is the key driver. We have international information and information from academic research to use in making comparisons, but where the Government go spectacularly wrong is in not doing proper research into what is happening. For instance, the Government's response to the Committee's report says, on page 16:
	"The Government believes that children should be supported to live with their parents wherever possible".
	However, there is no analysis of what is being used as a reason for removing children from their parents and what is not. A small piece of research done early last year looked into some of the issues. It identified that the children of mothers who have been in care are often taken into care in part for that reason, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Somebody is in care, they then have a child, and the fact that they have been in care is used as a reason to take that child, too, into care under section 31 proceedings. In my view, that is not a very sensible thing to do in the long term.
	We have to look at the academic research. One paper, which examined the evacuation of British children during world war three, when large numbers of children were, in effect, voluntarily fostered, is particularly interesting.

Tim Loughton: World war two.

John Hemming: That is true. Sorry about that—a slight error there, but who knows?
	That research was published in a report in  Aging and Mental Health, volume 7, issue 5, 2003. It found that the experience created an attachment disorder, which, in a sense, suggests reasons why the Danish approach is particularly good; it is an interesting question whether we should subcontract the entire system to Denmark. What we are not doing is finding out to what extent the way in which the care system operates creates reactive attachment disorder. There are obviously a number of cases, but the Government have done no research.

Meg Munn: I question what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I have tabled questions about research that may not have been done by the Government, but which was funded by them. A huge amount of research is done; my question is whether it is then disseminated. However, I could tell the hon. Gentleman at length—although obviously not today, Mr. Deputy Speaker—why certain things are done in the UK, such as the move to smaller children's homes. Those initiatives are based on research.

John Hemming: I am talking about research into particular issues, such as reactive attachment disorder, children who are adopted and then readopted, and why we try to get so many children aged seven, eight or nine adopted when that is clearly not in their best interests.
	We need to look at some individual cases. Let us take the case, which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) knows well, of Sebastian Godfrey, the grandson of Conservative county councillor Janet Mockridge. He is on the run somewhere on the continent with his mother and baby sister. They are on the run because Medway, the local authority—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Obviously I do not have detailed knowledge of the case, but I am not quite sure—

John Hemming: It is not sub judice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is ahead of me. I want to ensure that he is aware of the sub judice rules and that he is taking great care to ensure that he observes them.

John Hemming: My understanding is that the case is not before any court at the moment. Sebastian and his mother have been on the run for around 14 months. The father of the baby girl was jailed for 14 months, but has since been released. The family is on the run in Europe, yet Medway social services will not drop the complaint to the police and still wants the mother to be arrested under an international arrest warrant.
	I look at that case and I think, "What are the best interests of the child? What are we doing that could be of benefit to the child?" There are two children living with their mother on the run in France. One is not subject to the UK's jurisdiction because the child was born abroad and so cannot be taken away from the mother, but the other child could be taken away through proceedings under The Hague convention. What are the best interests of the child? Why does Medway want to continue the prosecution?
	There are cases where mothers have 14 babies on the trot, each one of which is taken into care and adopted. The cost of doing that is about £200,000 a child, which totals £2.8 million. That is not unique: there are a number of cases of people with 18 children, and I have seen smaller numbers, such as 12 or 10. However, is that really a good way of handling the care process? Would it not be feasible to try to support the mother in some way? I have looked at the detail of those cases, so I know what the reasoning behind them is, but is that really the best way forward? Does it work well? I was looking at a case on Monday, and it was clear from the papers that the child, who was about 12, wanted to return to her mother. There was no reason why she should not do so, but, according to the papers, she recognised that she could not return until she was 18.
	I accept that my proposition would not be the best way forward for all children, and that we need to intervene and take some children into care, and to put others with foster carers from time to time, but I tend to see the cases in which the system has gone wrong. The case of Sam and Adam Johnson is a good example of that. They are 15 and 17, and subject to a care order because they have fallen out with their mum and are prevented from living with their father. Sam has been able to go back now that he is 17. Essex county council has wasted a massive sum of money on that case. I talk to practitioners in Birmingham who say that they would never do that. Fair enough, but why did Essex county council do it? Initially, the local authority did not want to do it, but it was persuaded by the judge. Some very strange things go on, and unless we deal with them, the system will continue to steamroller people. At the moment it is steamrollering adults and children. Everyone here agrees that the outcomes of the system are disastrous.
	Obviously, there is good practice going on, but there is also bad practice. It is a good idea to have advocates for children, for example, but they must be independent. They cannot be appointed by children's services. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children does some very good advocacy work, and the reason why it is good is that the advocates are not appointed by the local authority. The people providing the services cannot also be the ones who appoint the advocates. To go back to the comparison with Denmark, it has been said that the best advocates are the child's natural parents, but we have a tendency to squeeze them out of the process. The figure of 7,000 to 8,000, based on SSDA903 returns, has been mentioned. Over half of the children under the age of 10 who go into care come out into adoption, according to the old figures. In 2004-05 the figure was about 3,800 a year.
	The system causes wrong decisions to be made in a material number of cases. It does not operate proper checks and balances. Now is not the time to go into the flaws in the family court system at great length, but the report is good in that it recognises the difficulties with the integrated children's system. I have written a report jointly with two social workers on why the integrated children's system causes social workers to remain in the office and make the wrong decisions because they cannot get out to see their clients. They are forced to feed their computers instead, and I am not convinced that the Government are doing enough to deal with that. People make the wrong decisions, the whole thing is driven through the system, ignoring realities at certain stages, and come hell or high water, they stick to the original decisions.
	There are social workers who agree with me that there are serious problems in the systems. In the family court system, for example, we find that the children and the parents are often trying to fight the professionals, which is not the way to achieve good child care and good outcomes for children. There are even cases involving 14 or 15-year-old children in which a guardian from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service is trying to interfere. There is no role for a guardian in such cases. CAFCASS is supposed to represent the interests of a child, and it is unclear why it should be anywhere near a case in which the child is clearly Gillick competent.
	One of my biggest concerns is the way in which mental capacity is abused. Rachel Pullen's case is quite well known. I also know of another case in which a woman failed an IQ test that she was given through an interpreter, resulting in a psychologist deciding that she did not have the mental capacity to instruct a solicitor. She was then prevented from opposing care proceedings. As in the Rachel Pullen case, a later psychologist's report found that she did have the necessary mental capacity. The second psychologist spoke the woman's language, which made a difference.
	Obviously, it is a bit of a waste of time asking Lord Laming whether he was right last time. We really need a proper investigation, and I am pleased that we are making some progress in the Council of Europe, whose legal affairs and human rights committee is to examine family justice in this country.
	The Government need to carry out proper research into how the care system operates and where it is systematically going wrong. We are lucky that, in a sense, there is a social science research experiment in the country as a whole, because we have the Scottish system and the English system. In Scotland babies go home to their parents; in England they are adopted. It is thus possible to make a comparison of how the systems are operating where people speak the same language and have quite similar legislation.
	I could speak at massive length about the issue, but there would be no great merit in doing so, and I want to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) to contribute to the debate. We are not looking sufficiently at where the problems are. Unless we really focus on where the wrong decisions are taken, and unless we have a system of checks and balances that operates in the best interests of the child rather than what is best for the people who make money out of dealing with children, we will not make progress.

Annette Brooke: I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on his leadership of the Select Committee, which brought this report about. I feel quite privileged to have played a small part in it myself, but the leadership is very important. When the report was published, it received considerable media attention—across a wide range of media—and I believe it was a good reflection on our society that this subject was news and that people wanted to reflect on it. I hope that only good will come out of it. I want briefly to address just a few issues and to push the Government a little further on their response.
	My first point is about the threshold for taking children into care. I agree with my hon. Friends that the report has left questions in the air in that respect—and rightly so, as these are really important questions. We know that there is a great variation across the country; we do not want to think that decisions are made on a cost basis, but we do not know. We know that since the baby Peter affair, there has been an enormous increase in the number of children taken into care, and we anticipate that as that incident fades into the back of people's minds, those numbers will diminish. We heard about the same experience—of rises and falls over time—in New York. That is not good enough; we need a balanced approach. I agree with the Government that local decision making and taking the right decision for each individual child is important, but there must be a national debate, which would also need to reflect in a deep way on international experience.
	I was quite alarmed when I saw an edition of  Children & Young People Now with the headline "Councils 'capping' care places". Further reading revealed an example of a county council that
	"has had 60 children in residential care every year from 2004 to 2008".
	There might be all sorts of reasons for that; there may be some rounding of the numbers, for example. I do not know, but that example raises questions, which need answering, about whether that council has a fixed number of places and draws the line there.
	I remember the introduction of quality protects and the concept of corporate parenting being introduced in 1997; there was some good stuff in that. However, as I read the Government's response, I find it seems to be saying, "All these statutory partners in the children's trusts will all become corporate parents," but corporate parenting means doing something as well as being something. I suspect that there is a major role for elected members to give real leadership within their local authorities. I would like to see some good practice publicised across the country, as I suspect some authorities do corporate parenting a lot better than others.
	I also want to reflect on health and well-being, as the passage of the Children and Young Persons Bill through Committee was frustrating for me. I failed to get my amendment accepted because it dealt with a health matter. I think we need more joined-up Government. The Government's response is, I think, basically in agreement with the Select Committee, but we need more than words. Many troubled and vulnerable young people are brought into the care system and many of them will have been abused, yet therapeutic treatment is not available promptly across the country. Provision is really patchy. It is not good enough just to promise assessments; we really need to offer the treatment. It must be provided promptly if we are to break the cycle of abuse. There has been talk of what will happen in the future; perhaps the Minister will give us an idea of the time frame.
	Of course children and young people need to stay in care for longer, especially as 45 per cent. of those in care are adolescents. Evidence given to the Select Committee by one of our witnesses suggested that the GCSE results of 16-year-olds in care were remarkably good in view of the state that those children were in when they entered the care system. Because there is so much catching up to do, young people in care are likely to need to continue their education for quite a bit longer. I was pleased when Dorset was chosen as one of the areas for a "staying put" pilot scheme. Has the Minister any idea when we may be able to move beyond the pilots? I understand that they are going rather well.
	I was also pleased that the Committee considered the issue of kinship care. However, although a little more money is available since the passage of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008, I know of grandparents who are forced into hardship when they are doing their very best for children. Of course we do not want them to do it for the money, but I have witnessed the making of great sacrifices. "Voice of the Child" is dear to my heart, and I welcome the creation of children in care councils, although I should have preferred them to be statutory. I am not sure that they will be provided by all local authorities, but I sincerely hope that they will.
	The Committee said a great deal about advocacy. We argued strongly that every child should be entitled to an independent advocate whenever a decision was made about him or her. The Government responded favourably, making a commitment that future statutory guidance would state explicitly that children were entitled to such support. When will that guidance be introduced, and when will this actually happen? Let me issue a particular plea for disabled children. Many children in the care system are severely disabled, and they of all people need advocates—not necessarily the advocates whom we might expect to appoint, but those who will understand their gestures and emotions.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) made an important point about trafficked children. We have much more to do in that regard. I was disappointed that the Government did not accept the Committee's recommendation that a guardian should be appointed for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The Government keep turning their back on that all-important issue.
	There is much to celebrate in the progress of some young people through the care system, and indeed much to celebrate in terms of their achievements on the way; but as we have been saying for a long time, we must do better. The quality of the work force across the board is key, as is the stability of placements. I agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that every child in our society ought to be entitled to live in a stable loving relationship.
	I suspect that the Select Committee's report on social workers will be of great significance. We have heard compelling evidence to suggest that things need to be done very differently. Having read the preliminary report of the Social Work Taskforce, I hope that the Select Committee's report will make a bigger contribution. There is good practice, but we need to provide the best for all our children. We must make a cross-party commitment to tackling a very real issue that we have not faced up to over the years.

Tim Loughton: We have had a good and full debate for a Thursday afternoon, with some excellent contributions from both sides of the House on a range of different subjects. Different expertise was introduced into the debate, starting with the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) who spoke about child trafficking. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) catalogued all the very poor outcomes—I will not repeat them—that I am afraid are very much a fact of life for children in the care system and the generational vicious circle of under-achievement that we so often see.
	The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) is no longer in his place but he mentioned that we are talking about victims. It needs to be reinforced that in 99.9 per cent. of cases of children who find themselves in the care system, it is not their fault. They are the victims. They come from a damaged background and they deserve and have the right to a second chance at a decent upbringing, which is what the care system should be able to provide for them.
	The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) made some interesting points about the respective ages of leaving care and the particular pressures of the availability of housing. I will not mention the particular cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), one of which I have a special interest in. He certainly had a great fascination for the detail of statistics and the research that was needed—until, of course, it came to researching the number of world wars, where he was out by a margin of 50 per cent.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) has spoken a lot on this subject and she made the point that the report received a lot of good media coverage. I wonder whether it would have received the same level of media coverage had it not been in the wake of the baby Peter tragedy. Probably the biggest tragedy is that it takes such a high-profile case to put the subject in the public consciousness and on the front pages, yet it is a problem and a scandal that has been going on day in, day out for too many years.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and his Committee on the detail and thoroughness of the report and on being able to secure this debate. As I said, we have not had debates on vulnerable children and children in care in all the time that we have had a Children's Minister; such debates have been held only in Opposition time. They should be held more and we have a responsibility to do that.
	The report should not really be necessary. We should have tackled the scandal of these under-achievements a long time ago. Along with child protection and safeguarding, the Government have done a lot in terms of legislation over the past few years, especially since the Climbié report. We have had big structural changes—in children's services and in directors of children's services. Lots of new positions and new databases have been created, with varying effectiveness. We have had new qualifications for the professionals involved in looking after vulnerable children. I fear that the system has become rather bureaucratic. In some cases, it can be said that the system has become more about protecting itself and conforming with the rule books than about protecting the vulnerable children and families whom the people involved are there to protect.
	We have been clear for some years—we published "No More Blame Game", the results of the Conservative party's commission on social workers, almost two years ago and made a submission to the Laming inquiry—that new structures, new personnel, new titles and new computer systems are all very well, but they are subsidiary to making sure that there are adequately resourced, motivated, trusted and respected professionals, especially social workers, able to get on with their jobs at the sharp end. It is not computer systems that rescue vulnerable children and provide them with a decent opportunity to rebuild a damaged upbringing by giving them the tools to succeed. It is the right interventions by the right people, properly informed by computer data rather than shackled to those computers for too much of the time as they struggle to fill in ever more bureaucratic integrated children's systems and other assessment forms—constantly chasing their tails, reacting to safeguarding children cases, rather than getting involved proactively to keep families together and steer them away from crisis situations or to remove a child speedily when the value judgment needs to be made.
	Nine years on from the tragic death of Victoria Climbié, and following numerous reviews of the care system, it is unacceptable that, for many children, simply taking them into care will condemn them to a childhood of significant under-achievement. If we are taking a child into care, it must be able to replace that child's growing up environment with something that is better. It must take them out of immediate danger but surely gives them something better than they would have put up with had they remained with their birth parents.
	We have heard all the statistics. The proportion of children in care achieving five GCSEs or equivalent at grade A* to C has risen from 8 per cent. in 2001 to 13.9 per cent. in 2008. That is progress, but over the same period the proportion of all children—including children in care, so the figure for non-children in care is even higher—achieving those grades at GCSE has risen from 48 to 65 per cent. The gap, which is what is important, has risen from 40 per cent. in 2001 to about 51 per cent. That under-achievement gap is the true scandal, and it shows how we regard children in care. We permit them to under-achieve so badly because the system is simply not looking after them.
	Let us look at some other outcomes. The report underlined the fact that 45 per cent. of looked-after children aged between five and 17 have mental health problems, compared with one in 10 of the school-age population as a whole. Also, up to 49 per cent. of young offenders in young offenders institutions have been in the care system, and we condemn them to a recidivism rate that makes it very likely that they will get on to the slippery slope to a lifetime of crime. We still have a long way to go, therefore.
	It is not only right in itself that we should redouble our efforts to get a better deal for children in care, but it is a false economy not to do so, as children from the care system feature disproportionately in the fallout from broken Britain. Following the baby Peter case, the situation has become even more urgent, as the number of applications for care proceedings has risen sharply from December of last year. Interestingly, however, the proportion actually resulting in care orders has fallen quite sharply over that period, which raises the question of whether there is an unnecessary knee-jerk reaction. We need to do more research into that.
	I do not want to be entirely negative, because in my travels around children's services departments throughout the country in recent months I have seen some excellent examples of good practice—as, I am sure, have many hon. Members. They need to be disseminated more widely, however.
	Yesterday morning, I visited an excellent small residential home in Harrow that is run by the local authority. It gives very good support to the teenage residents there. I met the director of children's services for Harrow, Paul Clark, who knows all of the 150 children in the care of that borough. Last week, he took a group of them out bowling. All the children in care in that authority can have access to the director of children's services. We should be able to expect such hands-on contact in all authorities.
	On Monday, I spent the day with social workers in Hackney, and saw the effective new social worker units there with their consultant social worker professionals. They are fired-up and motivated people, and they told me that they are now spending more of their time with the vulnerable families and their children, rather than in front of computers filling in assessment forms—although they would like to scrap the integrated children's system or ICS all together. In the past few years, that borough has gone from being almost a basket case in child safeguarding to reducing the number of children in care by about a third. It has done that by being far more proactive, putting in far more resources, and freeing up far more social workers' time to spend with the families in order to try to keep the children with their families and keep the children together. That is the result that all of us want to achieve. Consequently, whereas there are a great many problems with vacancy rates in other authorities throughout the country, for its posts of consultant social worker that authority was turning away 10 applicants for every one recruited—so it can choose the cream of the crop. This can be done, therefore.
	Barnet had an innovative recruitment campaign called "Got a new Barnet?" It has brought in a buddy system: every child in care is buddied up with an officer of the council, from the chief executive downwards. Educational achievement, for one thing, has gone up considerably.
	Nearby, in Ealing, where I opened the Horizons education centre the year before last, there is a drop-in place for children in care. It is run largely by people who used to be children in care, who went on to university, and who have taken up work with that borough, so they really know what children in care want. As of this year, 18 per cent. of children in care in the borough of Ealing are going on to university, which compares with some 1 or 2 per cent. of the looked-after children population as a whole. That is an extraordinary achievement, and I believe that Ealing's figure is the highest in the country.
	Another example that I have seen is the family drug and alcohol court in Wells street, here in London. It is a new pilot scheme, based on an experiment in the United States, whereby intensive support is given to parents who are on the verge of losing their children to the care system. It involves not only rehabilitation for drug and alcohol problems, which are so often the cause of family break-up, but housing support, education support and so on. It is a real last-chance saloon aimed at trying to keep families together.
	I have seen examples of family conferencing through the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, and we need a lot more of that. I have seen Foster Care Associates projects offering intensive support to foster carers such that the educational achievements of children in that sort of foster care are alarmingly higher than the average that would be expected. I have seen the Action for Children black families adoption project, which is run out of south London, where black children, and black teenage boys in particular, who are disproportionately represented in the looked-after children system are now finding prospective adoptive black parents, of whom there has been a great scarcity. That innovative project is offering those black children stable, loving homes and a second chance to have the stable family upbringing that they have missed out on.
	The Government response to the report was a bit light and could have gone a lot further, although the spirit of it was very much in agreement with the thrust of the Committee's report, most of which I agree with. I support the measures in the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 designating a teacher responsible for looked-after children. I would have also liked to see a designated governor to give some extra beef to the accountability line and ensure that things are carried out in practice. It is important to ensure that children in the care system are kept, wherever possible, in a familiar environment that is close to home, close to family members and extended family members and close to their school so that they can receive some continuity of education, as the lack of that is such a big problem for so many children in the care system.
	Let us consider some of the points that the Committee made and the Government's response. The first point is about removing the barriers that obstruct the development of "good personal relationships". We have heard a bit today about the Danish experiment, but I do not think anyone has mentioned the pedagogue view of social work, which is all about empathy between the social worker responsible and the child in the care system. We hear so often from children in the care system about the lack of continuity in social workers. Children are constantly chasing their tails, they cannot rely on the social worker to turn up when they want them to do so, and before they know it the social worker has moved on and there is a change. How on earth can we expect to rehabilitate a child who has gone through such a damaged and disruptive family background if we constantly give them different schools or different foster carers because they are being moved around, or different social workers? These children need to establish empathy, stability and a link with people who have their best interests at heart.
	That is why the Danish experiment was so interesting. What I saw in the homes that I visited—I went to Helsinki with the shadow children's team—is a flexibility in the system. In this country, a child is either in care or with their birth parents. In the homes in Denmark—many more children in care there are in residential children's homes, which are almost exclusively owned and run by the municipalities in that country—there is greater flexibility. The children will go home, whatever home may be, at weekends. Once a week in one of the homes family members come in and the children cook dinner for them. We lack that greater flexibility in this country, and we need to see how some of the social pedagogy pilots that are being developed and that will be coming in with residential children's homes pan out, because I think that they could offer some interesting examples of how we can do things rather better.
	The social worker practices to which we gave legislative authority in the recent Bill will be very important, certainly in providing specialisations to deal with some of the more challenging children. We need to consider how to ensure that we can fill the gap in the number of foster carers; there is a shortage of up to 10,000 quality foster carers in this country. There is a postcode lottery of what we pay foster carers and how we support them. If we invested a bit more in the support that we give them, especially those dealing with some of the most challenging children, fewer placements might break down—which is a big problem. We should also do more with kinship carers. It is crazy that in this country some 4 to 6 per cent. of social worker-instigated placements are with kinship carers, but in Denmark the figure is nearer 25 per cent. The guidance says that we should do more, but in practice we are not achieving it. Much more practical help for foster carers, especially kinship foster carers, is needed.
	I have a serious concern about what Ofsted is actually inspecting in children's social care. There is still a big problem with the legacy from the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Ofsted is dominated by people from educational backgrounds and we know that there is not a single qualified social worker on its board, so we need to review the way in which it inspects children's homes and other forms of children's social care.
	I am glad that the Government have set aside any notion of a target number of children in care. That was a nonsense, as are any targets for children in care. Every child must be treated as an individual.
	Many hon. Members mentioned the need to intervene early wherever possible. It is a false economy not to do so, because some children are so damaged when they eventually come into care that it takes twice as much effort to get them back on to the straight and narrow.
	It is crazy that in this country the average age at which children leave their parents' home is 25—it is getting later and later because of property prices and the recession—but we expect many children in residential care to go into the big wide world at the age of 16. They face enormous questions about whether to get a job or sit more exams, and how to find housing. We need more flexibility in the system because, while some children may be up to doing all that at 16, some certainly are not. Even for those able to do it at 16, everything can go pear-shaped a couple of years later and they find that they cannot cope. That is why we need support mechanisms so that children can leave the care system, but dip back into it if they need to do so.
	It is absurd that many care leavers are declared intentionally homeless and have to fall back on the local authority to give them emergency housing. That is crazy, and I am pleased that the report mentions this vicious circle that affects too many of our most vulnerable young people. Housing is one of the biggest practical problems that they face.
	The recommendations in the report include a request to the Government
	"to guarantee future funding for social workers posts in Youth Offending Institutions."
	Earlier this year I visited the YOI at Brinsford and met the social worker of the year, Jacqui Knight, who is doing fantastic work there. She sent me a letter earlier this week from the Association of Directors of Children's Services, which warns that the funding for the scheme that has been working for some time to secure the long-term sustainability of social worker posts in YOIs is now seriously under threat. For that reason, some of the posts may be lost and the future of people such as Jacqui Knight is seriously in doubt. That would be an enormous loss in dealing with some of the most challenging young people who have left care and ended up in the youth justice system. I hope that the Government will look at the issue again, because those social workers are doing some fine work.
	I could also mention the whole problem of unaccompanied asylum seekers, of which I have particular experience in West Sussex, where we have Gatwick airport. Many children come into the care system as a result, only to be abducted by pimps from west Africa and to end up in the sex trade in northern Italy.
	This is an important report on a really important subject. It deserves much greater exposure than it has had over too many years. It is a tragedy that it has taken a high profile tragedy such as baby Peter to get this sort of work noticed.
	The outcomes for children in care in this country are a scandal that we have accepted over too many years. We must redouble our efforts to ensure that we do not fail so many children in the care system who have already been failed by their families. They have the right to expect the state to give them a second chance at a stable upbringing so that they can become the decent members of society that we all want them to become. We have a duty of care to ensure that that can happen.

Diana Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and all the other members of the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families for compiling this report, which, as my hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, concerns the most vulnerable children in our society. I also want to thank members of the Select Committee for their interventions and speeches throughout this afternoon. I found the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) particularly useful and helpful. Some very interesting points were raised in both.
	We have had a wide-ranging debate, moving from issues such as council house building targets to the presidency of the EU. If I do not answer all the points that have been raised, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me. I shall try to write to them on any outstanding points.
	The report is a good one and it provides a thorough analysis of the care system. I am delighted that it recognises the commitment and investment that the Government have made since 1997 to help children in care. I think that we all agree that those children deserve exactly the same opportunities in life as their peers, whether that means a good education, good health care or simply the consistent support, advice and practical help that provides the foundations on which young people build their lives. The Government have set about strengthening those foundations through critical reforms such as Every Child Matters, "Aiming High" and "Care Matters".
	We recognise that there is always more to do and more support that we can provide to young people. Local authorities will have to open up new opportunities for children and ensure that the highest quality support is available to children in care everywhere, not just here and there. Councils need to stop thinking in terms of what is good enough for children in care. They should think instead about their role as corporate parents in helping the children in their care to shine.
	When I read the Select Committee report, I was very struck by the phrase "pushy parents". That is absolutely right. In these circumstances, we want corporate parents to be really pushy parents. That means making the appropriate financial investment and ensuring that the right services are in place, but it also means having very high expectations—the same expectations as any good parent.
	As corporate parents, councils need to ensure that their children and young people have the same access as others to educational and other opportunities. For example, if a child is musical they should be encouraged to learn an instrument and given the necessary funding, or if a boy has a sporting talent he should be provided with a sporting programme tailored to his needs. If a child needs one-to-one support tuition, councils should use the £500 personal education allowance that we have made available to pay for it. I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, who is not in his seat at the moment, talked about that point and had concerns about whether the money would get to where it is needed.
	This comes down to the fact that corporate parenting is just that—parenting. It is very important for the welfare of the child in care that councillors do not lose sight of that fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North also mentioned the need to celebrate the success of young people in care and how opportunities to do that should be embraced to make young people feel as they would in a family situation. If they pass exams, there should be a celebration of that.
	The Government recognise, of course, that we have responsibilities to make the changes happen. We must help improve children's services by providing the right legislation and structural frameworks, by setting clear objectives and standards and by monitoring and inspecting services and outcomes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield knows, last year we passed the Children and Young Persons Act 2008, which we believe will put the right legislative framework in place. Through our "Care Matters" programme, we now have a comprehensive programme of reform in place to provide clear objectives and standards.
	However, we will continue to do everything we can to transform the quality of care, and to raise aspirations for care leavers. That means taking action from the moment that children are placed in the hands of a local authority, which is why we want a shift in the quality of care provided by local authorities for looked-after children. We want to make sure that young people receive good parenting from every person involved in their lives. We want children in care to be consulted about their needs and views, and we want the educational performance of looked-after children to be improved so that the overwhelming majority attend school regularly and achieve good examination results.
	We also want to make sure that young people leaving care can participate socially and economically as citizens, while living in suitable accommodation and being in employment, education or training. I accept that those are very tough objectives, but we are confident that they are achievable. Indeed, we have already started to see the results of the investment that has been made. There has been a steady increase in the educational attainment of children in care, and the greater support given to care leavers has led to more children living in suitable accommodation. In addition, young people in care are experiencing fewer placement moves.
	Now is the moment to build on that success, and I hope that the report can act as a catalyst. I particularly want to talk about the voice of the child, because that has to be at the heart of policy development in this area. Listening to children in care is critical to ensuring that the care system can replicate the secure care of good parents for every looked-after child. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield stressed the need for the listening skills that were employed when the report was compiled. It is absolutely right that we must continue to listen to looked-after children so that we can hear what their experience has been like and what they would like to be changed.
	That means that decisions should always be made in the best interests of the child, based on a thorough assessment of their needs. We must take the child's wishes and feelings fully into account, just as any parent would. We expect all local authorities to establish children in care councils and to put in place pledges to give children and young people a real opportunity to influence services and support in their area.
	We have asked the charity A National Voice, which represents children in care, to contribute to this autumn's ministerial stock-take on the progress of children in care councils. I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is particularly interested in that. In addition, local authorities and their children's trust partners are expected to consult young people in developing their children and young persons plan. For individual children in care, the current framework of legislation and statutory guidance already requires the local authority to involve children and record their views.
	Good children's services should be developed with young people, not foisted on them. We know that children in care want to be listened to on the day-to-day issues that affect their lives, such as pocket money, bedtimes, sleepovers or clothes. As parents, of course we listen to the views of our own children on these issues, even if we do not always agree with them. As corporate parents, we should do exactly the same thing for children in care.
	I agree that care planning has not always taken proper account of the child's wishes and feelings, but the role of the independent reviewing officer is being strengthened to ensure that children participate in planning for their own care, and that the care plan is based on a thorough assessment of all aspects of the individual child's needs. The Children and Young Persons Act 2008 will enhance that framework, and reinforce the responsibility of the child's social worker for establishing and recording the child's views.
	A lot has been said this afternoon about the relationship between the work force and children. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield mentioned the vital importance of social workers or residential or foster carers having a strong bond with children and their families. I absolutely agree with him on that point, and on the report's conviction that the care system should be seen as part of a continuum of effective family support services, rather than as something separate and distinct. We know that, where there are strong attachments between children and at least one adult, children are happier and achieve better outcomes. The Government are absolutely committed to improving the skills and competencies of foster and residential carers. We want to support them in building strong relationships with the children and young people whom they look after, and help them to take good decisions about their care.
	As my hon. Friend knows, the "Care Matters" implementation plan sets out a programme of work to achieve those aims. That includes much better training and support for foster carers, with the roll-out of the fostering changes programme and the piloting of the social pedagogy model in residential children's homes that comes from Denmark. We have heard a lot this afternoon about the experiences in Denmark and other European countries. There is a pilot in England, and careful attention will be paid to its outcomes.
	Supporting relationships with family members is crucial. Most children are in care only for short periods, and a primary aim must be to try to settle them back with their parents, wherever possible and appropriate. Even when children are likely to remain in care for the long term, most children will want to maintain their links with their family.
	Let me deal with foster carers. "Care Matters" highlights the need to support foster carers to develop their own training and skills, thus allowing them to respond more appropriately to children in their care. But I agree with the Select Committee report that foster carers should also be given practical support, including financial support and information about how to access education and health services. That is why, as my hon. Friend knows, we have funded a number of initiatives in recent years to improve the support for foster carers, such as working with the Children's Workforce Development Council to develop foster care training, support and development standards; funding the national roll-out of the fostering changes programme; introducing a national minimum allowance for foster carers in 2007; and, of course, funding Fosterline—a national, independent advice line for foster carers.
	A number of Members have commented on residential care. I am in complete agreement that such care has an important role to play as a placement option. For many young people, particularly the older ones, it will be the right placement choice. However, many local authorities and social workers still do not see it as a positive option; they see it as an option of last resort. That is why the Government are committed to ensuring that residential care is seen as a positive option for those young people who would benefit from it.
	Children's homes cater for some of the most vulnerable children in our society, and it is important to note that the quality of that provision has been improving. As my hon. Friend will know, 92 per cent. of children's homes have been rated satisfactory or better by Ofsted and two thirds were rated as good or outstanding at their most recent inspections. But there is no room for complacency, and we need to continue to do everything that we can to raise standards in children's homes. That is why we are now funding the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care, introducing tough new enforcement powers for children's homes that fail to comply with the national minimum standards, revising the national minimum standards for children's homes, and working with the Children's Workforce Development Council to look at developing training and development standards for staff in children's homes.
	Social work reform is a very important issue, which my hon. Friend raised in his contribution at the beginning of the debate. The Select Committee is carrying out an inquiry into that critical area, in which the Government have made significant strides. As hon. Members will be aware, the Secretaries of State for Children, Schools and Families and for Health established a joint Social Work Taskforce at the end of last year to make recommendations, and it has already consulted widely with social workers and other key partners. The work of the taskforce will build on Lord Laming's report, and it is important to acknowledge that much good work is already under way to improve social care services for children and young people locally and nationally.
	Alongside new funding, the Secretary of State has also announced a number of new measures that are intended to have an immediate impact. That includes addressing recruitment issues through the return to social work scheme, the graduate recruitment scheme and the roll-out of the newly qualified social worker programme. The very nature of social work means that it will always be a challenging job. Too often, our social workers do not get the recognition that they so thoroughly deserve. We must therefore ensure that they are properly supported to carry out their hugely important work, while also being properly valued and respected.
	On the education of looked-after children, the report rightly raises the issue of the gap in educational attainment between children in care and their peers. We know only too well that every poor GCSE result chips away at a young person's aspirations and prospects. However, progress is being made; in 2008, 14 per cent. of looked-after children achieved five GCSEs at grades A* to C. That is double the figure in 2000, but it has to be better. Of course, huge progress has been made by the young people as a whole, which is to be applauded and welcomed, but we must get things right for looked-after young people in particular.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield will know, key stage 2 attainment has been improving steadily. Undoubtedly there is more to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North spoke about the fact that looked-after children are given top priority in admissions arrangements. That goes for all schools; there was some debate about academies. There is a £500 personal education allowance. We are already piloting the role of the virtual school head, which the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) mentioned, and there will be designated teachers for looked-after children in every school from the start of the new school year. It is worth recognising that opportunities for boarding are available, where they are suitable for the needs of a child.
	We have talked about health. We have been working hard to improve the health of children in care, and in recent years there has been an increase in the proportion of children who have had their annual health assessment and visit to a dentist. By 2008, some 87 per cent. of looked-after children had received a dental check and a health assessment in the previous year. The 2007 child health mapping survey found that 76 per cent. of primary care trusts had a designated doctor for looked-after children in post, and 93 per cent. reported having a designated nurse in post for looked-after children.
	I agree on the need to improve the support that child and adolescent mental health services provide to children in care, particularly given the very worrying statistic that around 45 per cent. of looked-after children aged five to 17 have a mental health problem of some kind. That issue is being explored as part of the consultation on the revised statutory guidance on the health and well-being of looked-after children.
	On the outcomes for care leavers, there are some encouraging signs that things are getting better. For instance, the proportion of care leavers in suitable accommodation rose from 79.6 per cent. in 2004 to 88.4 per cent. last year. The proportion of care leavers in education, employment and training has risen from 55.4 per cent. to 64.9 per cent. However, I agree that we need to do much better and go a lot further more quickly. That is why we want to change the way in which we think about that period in a young person's life. It should no longer be seen as leaving care; it should be seen as a transition to adulthood.
	We cannot and should not arbitrarily assume that young people are ready to move on simply because they have reached a certain age; a number of hon. Members have made that point. Instead, we need a presumption that children will continue to be looked after up to the age of 18. There will only very rarely, I think, be good reasons for a local authority to cease looking after a child before he or she turns 18. Local authorities will be prevented from moving a looked-after child from a fostering or children's home to what they call "other arrangements" unless they decide to do so following a statutory review of the child's case.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield knows that through "Care Matters", we will pilot a scheme whereby care leavers stay with former foster carers at 18. He will also know that a care leaver can access health and care services up to the age of 21, and that they will have personal advisers available up to the age of 25 if they need help with further learning or training. As I think Members in all parts of the House recognise, having a job is, for any young person, the first step to improving social mobility. For too long, too many young people have fallen into the trap of poverty and joblessness after leaving care because there was no one to give them the help that they needed.
	Our new employment programme for care leavers will provide that helping hand and give such young people the opportunity to realise their true potential. There will be career mentoring and work experience to support them into stable and rewarding work, and access to an appropriate range of accommodation options, which is vital to improving a young person's successful transition to adulthood. We would not accept our own children leaving home to live in unsuitable accommodation, and we certainly should not accept looked-after children living in unsuitable accommodation.
	In conclusion, I hope that I have shown that the "Care Matters" programme is about the Government, local authorities and voluntary organisations building a new partnership and investing to reverse past failings. Our most fundamental aim is to ensure that vulnerable children in this country get the best that society can offer—the care, safety and security that each and every child deserves. We need services that act no longer just as a safety net against failure, but as a springboard for success.

Barry Sheerman: Mr. Speaker, we have had more than our fair share of time. We have had a great, well-informed debate—a debate that shows the role that Select Committees can play in informing the House and in holding the Government to account, and I thank the House for the time.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that.
	 Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54(4)).

DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT

Road Safety

[Relevant Documents:  The Eleventh Report from the Transport Committee, HC 460, Session 2007-08,  on Ending the scandal of complacency: road safety beyond 2010, and the  Government responses, HC 136 and HC 422, Session 2008-09. ]
	 Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010, for expenditure by the Department for Transport—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £8,812,695,000 be authorised for use as set out in HC 514,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £7,734,837,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.— (Mrs. Hodgson.)

Louise Ellman: I am pleased to have the opportunity today to debate the important topic of road safety. This debate is taking place on estimates day, and it is very important indeed that essential spending on road safety measures be maintained.
	Road safety is about the lives of individuals and their families, but it is even more than that: it is a major issue that affects all our society. The Transport Committee's report "Ending the Scandal of Complacency: Road Safety Beyond 2010" sees road safety as a public health issue, looks at a way forward and how the situation can be improved and makes important recommendations to the Government.
	The road safety debate is ongoing. The Government produced an interim response followed by a fuller response, and that was linked to the Government's road safety strategy consultation called "A Safer Way: Consultation on Making Britain's Roads the Safest in the World". The Committee's report commends the Government on reaching their targets on road safety, and the most recent figures record, for 2008, the lowest number of road casualties yet. However, if we look at the cold facts, we find that 2,538 people still died on our roads in 2008; that 26,029 were recorded as having been seriously injured; and that there were total casualties of 230,884. That means thousands of blighted lives, and it is worth noting that road accidents are the largest single cause of death in people aged between five and 35 years old. They are tragedies for the individuals and their families, but it is a national scandal that so many people die.
	It is self-evident—indeed, it should make us think a little—that the scale of the carnage on our roads is not acceptable in any other mode of transport. We are talking about 2,500 people dead and more than 230,000 casualties, and, if those figures related to rail, sea or aviation, there would be national uproar. However, there is no uproar about them.

Eric Martlew: I remind my hon. Friend that last year or perhaps the year before, there was a rail crash in Cumbria at Grayrigg, and unfortunately an elderly lady was killed. There were then cries from many people for a public inquiry, but I suspect that on the motorway running parallel to the west coast main line, up to 10 people are killed every year, and nobody calls for a public inquiry.

Louise Ellman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and agree with his sentiments. I hope that the Transport Committee's report will help focus public attention on what is indeed a national scandal.
	I should like to highlight some of the key issues in our report and the Government's response. The report links road safety with wider policies to do with improving the environment and health. It also focuses on a stark fact that has little recognition: the close link between death on the roads and deprivation. Every death or injury on the roads is a great blow for anybody, whatever their background. However, child pedestrians from the lowest socio-economic group are 21 times more likely to be killed in traffic accidents than those in the higher groups. That chilling fact is not known widely enough and does not arouse as much consternation and uproar as it should.
	The report also looks at road safety as part of a system. It does not prescribe one single measure for dealing with the issue; it considers the design of roads and vehicles, enforcement, training and attitudes. It is pleasing to note that the Government are also starting to adopt that systems approach, in which it is recognised that there are many aspects to consider in addressing the critical issue of road safety and that a lot of different Departments need to be involved.
	The Committee was extremely concerned about the lack of reliability in the data on road injuries, particularly those in relation to serious injuries. Deaths on the roads declined by 18 per cent. during the period that we were considering; serious injuries declined by twice as much. We questioned the accuracy of the recording of serious injuries on the road, and specifically that of the STATS19 system. We were disappointed that although the Government's response acknowledged that there might be a problem, they did not propose any steps that we thought would deal with it. I am thinking particularly of the discrepancies between some of the reporting of serious accidents and data received by hospitals. We want the Government to do more on that issue, as we are not satisfied that the information that we are getting is accurate.
	The Committee was particularly concerned about the increase in deaths among certain groups of people. Although the overall number of casualties is coming down, there are areas of great concern; there has been, for example, an increase in deaths among motorcyclists and there is the situation in rural areas. The Committee focused on an aspect that it has considered before: that of novice drivers—young, male novice drivers in particular. Some 27 per cent. of 17 to 19-year-old male drivers have accidents during their first year of driving. One in every eight licence holders is under 25, yet one in three who die in collisions on the roads is in that age bracket.

Norman Baker: I have seen some of those figures myself. Does the hon. Lady believe that they are a reflection of the age of the drivers involved, and that there is therefore a case for raising the age at which a full licence can be obtained? Alternatively, does she think it inevitable that there will be such figures for males who are in their first year of holding a licence? In other words, would the 17-to-19 problem that she identified be the same if the driving age were raised to 18?

Louise Ellman: Owing to the way in which statistics are collected, we were focusing on novice young drivers; there are no comparable data on novice older drivers. However, it appears that the tragic facts that I am reporting relate to young people. The Committee feels that the issue is indeed related to age; it could be to do with attitude and experience of driving. Another chilling statistic is that one in two of those who die in accidents at night are under 25. Our recommendations on how to address this issue are wide-ranging.
	The Government acknowledged the severity of this problem, but we were disappointed that they did not feel able to accept some of our recommendations. We thought there should be tougher drinking and driving rules, particularly in relation to young drivers, although that is an issue for all drivers. We also advocated graduated licensing and a wider experience of driving before a test could be passed.

Norman Baker: I am genuinely interested in what the Committee has concluded given the evidence that the hon. Lady has collated from witnesses. Perhaps I can put my question in this way: does she believe that the problem of deaths involving novice drivers would be lessened if the age at which a full licence could be obtained were 18 rather than 17?

Louise Ellman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The key aspect is having sufficient experience of different types of driving before a licence can be obtained. Looking again at attitudes, people sometimes associate driving with bravado. In taking a decision about raising the age at which a licence can be granted, we would have to consider other aspects to do with young people's mobility: their need to be able to move around for work and leisure purposes. I acknowledge that a balance is needed, but saving life has to be an integral part of this.

Eric Martlew: Was not one of our other concerns that if we raised the age to 18, young people would drive without a licence—they would not bother going through the training system but simply get frustrated with not being able to drive, which could itself create some problems?

Louise Ellman: I thank my hon. Friend for his observation. Yes, indeed, that was one of the reasons the Committee did not make a recommendation in relation to age, although we did so in relation to experience required to pass the test. We also found a close relationship between uninsured, unlicensed driving and accidents, which was another matter of great concern.
	I wish to refer to a few of our recommendations. We thought it very important to make it easier for local authorities to have 20 mph zones in areas where they thought that appropriate. We are pleased that the Government seem to support that and hope that that will be followed up with guidance and help with the financial aspects of designating those zones. We wanted to have a separate target for reducing deaths rather than deaths aligned with serious injury, and that too has been accepted.
	We wanted a road accident investigation board to be set up, in the same way as there are such boards for other modes of transport—rail, aviation and in the maritime sector. As I said earlier, the scale of carnage on our roads would not be tolerated or accepted on any other mode of transport. There should be a road accident investigation board to emphasise that point and to try to improve the situation. We also thought that there should be an independent road safety commission that would continually assess what was happening and make recommendations.
	We wanted to establish a British road safety survey to produce more accurate statistics and perhaps to measure changes in attitude to different aspects of driving. Although the Government agreed that more questions could be incorporated into existing surveys such as the national travel survey, they did not accept our recommendation. They accepted that there should be a commission of experts to look at driving, but it was not entirely clear how it would be designated or what remit it would have; that seemed to fall rather short of our proposal for an independent road safety commission. We emphasised that there should be strong cross-departmental working, involving the Department for Transport, fire and rescue services, the Home Office and education and health services. That approach is extremely important.

Robert Goodwill: Does the hon. Lady agree that one problem may be that when the police arrive at the scene of an accident, they are more interested in finding somebody to prosecute than necessarily determining the cause of the accident?

Louise Ellman: There are certainly difficulties with assessing the causes of accidents, and perhaps decisions are taken very quickly when a rather longer period of assessment is required.
	It is pleasing that the Government have reiterated their wish to become a world leader in road safety again. I was pleased to participate recently in the launch here in the House of a report on global road safety aimed at saving 5 million lives and preventing 50 million serious injuries worldwide. It was encouraging for the people promoting the report to have both Lewis Hamilton and Rory Bremner on the platform.
	The Government have taken steps to improve road safety in the UK, and they have to be commended for their achievements. At the same time, we have to accept that it is never right, acceptable or tolerable for there to be more than 2,500 people dying on our roads every year and more than 230,000 injured. That is carnage, and it is why we called our report "Ending the Scandal of Complacency".

Eric Martlew: If I wanted to be glib, I would say that it is slightly ironic that we are talking about ending the scandal of complacency to an almost empty Chamber. The reality is that since the day we were born, we have got used to the idea that people get killed in road accidents. Also, we accept that things are getting better. I believe that in 1958, 6,000 people were killed on the roads, with a fraction of the traffic that we have today. At the end of last month it was announced that about 2,500 people had died on the roads in the previous year, so there has been a massive reduction.
	People are complacent, and they believe—this is not a party political matter—that the Government are doing a good job and that accident and death figures are going in the right direction. I suspect that if we were having a debate about knife crime, there would be many more Members in the Chamber, even though the number of people killed by knife crime is fraction of the number killed on the roads.
	There are some disturbing points in the report, however, and one that I want to touch on is the deaths of motorcyclists. I know that the number went down slightly in 2008, but there was a large increase before that. I suspect that the Transport Committee and the Government do not really know what is happening; we know that there is a problem, but we do not know what the solution is.
	Over the years, I think that two people have come to see me about deaths of motorcyclists. Both mentioned cases that were not the fault of the motorcyclist but that of a motorist or somebody driving a farm vehicle. The Government should aim their measures at drivers of other vehicles—people such as myself—who somehow do not seem to notice motorcyclists. I suspect that another problem is the middle-aged man who used to drive a bike when he was 21, who comes down from Alston moor on a beautiful day such as today and perhaps does not have the experience that he used to have when he was riding every day as a necessity rather than just at the weekend. We need to consider carefully how we can reduce deaths among motorcyclists, because motorcycling is an environmentally friendly way to travel and we should encourage people to do it. When statistics show that a person is 40 times more likely to be killed on a motorcycle than in a car, it is off-putting.
	The number of child deaths has fallen tremendously over the past 10 years, but every single death of a child is a tragedy, and I believe that the number increased slightly in the past year, from 121 to 124. We should be looking into how we can reduce that. Indeed, I know that the Government have a target to reduce child deaths by 50 per cent.; I will return to Government targets later.
	However, one thing that worries me is that although we are achieving a reduction in the number of children killed, we are also preventing youngsters from going out. One of the reasons for the fall in deaths is not that the traffic has got better; it is that parents do not like children to go out. In a way, the motor vehicle is turning youngsters into captives. We also need to compare the statistics for children from deprived backgrounds with those for children from affluent backgrounds. The number of children from deprived backgrounds who are killed is considerably out of proportion to the number from affluent backgrounds killed. We have to find out how we can make the streets safe—but not by keeping our children indoors. The 20 mph speed limit is an excellent example. Indeed, some whole towns have a 20 mph limit. We should consider that idea.
	There has been talk of international comparisons. I do not think that it matters whether we are top of the league or third or fourth, but we must continue to improve. We will be very near the top for 2008. Some countries, such as France and Spain, have improved greatly, but their numbers of deaths were much higher than ours. We have lessons to learn from the Netherlands and other areas. One part of the United Kingdom whose record bothers me is Northern Ireland, where people are three times more likely to die in a road accident than people on the mainland, and twice as likely to die in a road accident as people in the Republic. Perhaps the many years of the troubles made people in Northern Ireland concentrate on other priorities, but perhaps the new devolved Administration will try to find ways of putting that right.
	Another issue that concerns me is deaths on rural roads. Mine is a mostly urban constituency, although it is surrounded by a rural area and parts of it are rural. All too often, my constituents or people from a neighbouring constituency have been killed on the roads outside the city, and we can all see why. We have single carriageways. People go on those roads, get frustrated—perhaps by a farm vehicle, a learner driver or an elderly driver—and there is dangerous overtaking. Most of the time people get away with it, but if they do not, they end up in a head-on collision. That is how most fatalities happen.
	There is also a problem with the speed limit. Local authorities have some leeway on that, and the Government are encouraging them to do more. I am schizophrenic about the issue, in the sense that I like to be able to go quite fast—up to 60 mph—but if we reduce the limit to 50 mph, we will reduce deaths considerably, so our freedom in that respect should be curtailed. However, one of my concerns about the Government's proposals is that if we create more and more 50 mph zones, we will have to put up more and more signs. Do we really want to clutter up the roads in the countryside—especially the Cumbrian countryside—with a sign every 100 yards saying that the speed limit is 50 mph? The Government should consider that.
	I am pleased that the Government have taken on board a lot of our work in their draft consultation report. People say, "Select Committees don't count," but that is nonsense, because the Government have been able to pick our brains. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) was a member of our Committee, and a valued one too. I accept that the Government have other responsibilities and that we are only there to make suggestions, but a lot of work has been done.
	I am disappointed, however, by the Government's response to the problem of novice drivers. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) has covered most of the points on that subject. I am worried about novice drivers going out late at night in their small Peugeots or Fords. There are often two lads and two girls in the car, and they fly around at 11 o'clock at night without having had any experience of driving in the dark. I am not suggesting that they have had too much to drink. The car comes off the road, hits a tree and young lives are destroyed. Some of the young people might not die but they will be badly injured. The Government copped out over the question of a curfew. I know that that would be difficult to enforce, but I believe that the parents would have enforced it. They would have said, "You know that this is your first year of driving. You have to be back by 11 o'clock." I hope that the Government will look at that matter again.
	I shall make my final point now. We had plenty of time for these debates, but the first one ran for quite a while. The Government have set a target of achieving a 50 per cent. reduction in child road deaths by 2020, and a 33 per cent. target for reducing adult deaths. That is welcome, but the Minister will be aware that we are starting from a level of 3,000 deaths a year, which means that our target is 2,000 by 2020. That is quite an easy target to reach. I think that 2,500 people died in the past year, so we are halfway towards achieving it already. We could easily get the figure down to 2,000 by 2010 if the advances of the past two years are repeated in the next two.
	We do not really know why the reduction is taking place. It probably has something to do with the fact that new cars have better safety features, including air bags. It might also have something to do with Ministers in the OPEC countries putting up the price of fuel, which results in people reducing their speed. If we are to reduce the number of people being killed—and the number of lives devastated as a result—we have to reduce our speed. I know that some people do not like that idea, although as I get older I do not mind it so much. I would probably have objected to it more when I was 30 years younger.
	The Government have done a good job, although they have missed some of the opportunities suggested in our report. I hope that they will look again at the proposal for a curfew, and I believe that their targets will be too easily achieved and should be revised downwards. Perhaps it is a bit daft to say that we are aiming for a target of only 2,000 people being killed, but targets work—and really, we should be aiming for a figure of 1,500, or even 1,000, by 2020. That would be better for everyone.

Bob Russell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who has clearly given a lot of thought to these matters. I congratulate the Select Committee and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on the presentation of their report. I declare an interest, in that I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on road safety, and of the associate parliamentary group for justice for road traffic victims, with which the charity RoadPeace is connected. I first became interested in road safety issues a good 40 years ago when, as a young reporter on the local newspaper, the Essex County Standard, I had the unfortunate duty of reporting on road crashes and attending inquests.
	My understanding is that the number of road deaths last year—2,500—was the lowest since records began, and that it was on a par with the figure for 1926, when there was considerably less traffic on the roads. I also understand that we reached a peak of about 8,000 road deaths in 1966. That is an horrendous statistic, bearing in mind the number of cars that were on the road then, compared with today. Much credit must be given to the successive Governments and road safety Ministers who have achieved this progress, but there is more to be done. My view is that there should be no target other than a zero target, because one road death is one too many. I do not find much cause for rejoicing in saying, "Only 120 children got killed last year, whereas it was 130 the previous year." We need to drive down—literally drive down—the number of road deaths.
	I pay special tribute to the new road safety Minister, who yesterday graciously spent nearly an hour with me and two constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Bell, whose only child Jordan, aged 14, was killed in a road crash in my constituency by someone driving at more than 30 mph in a 30 limit; his alcohol content was marginally below the legal maximum of 80 mg per 100 ml. The petition that my constituents presented is intended to get that limit down to 50 mg, which I believe is not an unreasonable target. Even that would be higher than it is in Sweden, which shares with Britain the best record in the world for reducing road deaths. If we must have targets, these are targets that we can be proud of, as we have done more than any country in the world apart from Sweden to reduce road deaths, and Sweden has a much lower drink-drive limit than us. If we could get it down to 50 mg, we could all be proud of it, and my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Bell would certainly feel that some good had come of their tragedy.
	There are other important issues. We need to invest in road safety in order to prevent road deaths and serious injuries, which—never mind the human tragedy—are a considerable cost to the economy. I have visited hospitals and seen people who have been involved in road crashes on life-support machines, so I know about the trauma and tragedy that goes with that. We need to persuade the Treasury that having traffic-calming measures outside schools and carrying out road safety measures will actually save the public purse in the long run.
	I drew to the attention of the road safety Minister only yesterday—I do so again to the House this afternoon—that on a side road by a school in Westminster there is a school safety sign the like of which I have not seen anywhere else in the country. The school sign is painted on the highway itself, so a motorist who cannot see a sign on a post will be able to see it on the road surface—unless we have snow, of course, which is unlikely at this time of year. For most of the year, that road sign is there in paint on the highway. A few weeks ago, when I was in glorious Derbyshire, I found another type of school safety sign in Chesterfield that I would like the Department for Transport to introduce elsewhere. It flashes at school arrival and departure times, not only to indicate the school but to introduce a 20 mph speed limit during those periods. Those two measures alone would be very useful, especially if we could join them together.
	I am one of only a few people who are fans of speed cameras. I remember discussing speed cameras in connection with an earlier transport Bill. The right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), then a Home Office Minister, was the nice guy and the other Minister, Mr. Paul Boateng, was the not-so-nice guy. The right hon. Member for Norwich, South assured me that speed cameras were a road safety device, not a revenue generator—and I hope that remains the case. Since then, other cameras have been introduced that flash up the relevant speed limit—30 mph, 40 mph or whatever. I suggest that what we need is a hybrid camera—one that states whatever the speed limit is, but also imposes a fine if a driver exceeds that limit. The technology is there; it is just a question of putting the two cameras on the same pole.
	The hon. Member for Carlisle drew attention to the need for better design of our country roads. I should like the Minister to discuss with his colleagues the A140 north of Ipswich, which extends through Suffolk into Norfolk and up to Norwich—a place that I may visit more frequently in the next few weeks, but which I already visit on a regular basis.
	The A140 features regularly on regional television. We frequently learn that there has been another crash, that the road is closed, that people have been killed. The road itself is not unsafe. We know that crashes are caused by drivers, not by roads. However, if roads were better engineered, and if the various hazards were engineered out, there would be fewer road crashes—Members will note that I never use the word "accident"—fewer injuries on the roads, and fewer fatalities. Obviously the A140 is not the only road to which that applies; it applies to roads all over the country. I have cited it because it is the main road link between Ipswich and Norwich, and the road that my constituents in north Essex use to travel to Norfolk.
	Let me say something about traffic calming and reducing speed limits. Until I had a taster session with the Colchester branch of the Institute of Advanced Motorists I was the world's best driver, but I quickly realised that there was a lot to learn. I took the full course, and finally passed the IAM test. I learnt two things: that, as the hon. Member for Carlisle suggested, the speed limit should be dropped by 10 mph; and that a driver should keep space between his car and the vehicle in front of it. Those two simple measures alone would result in a huge reduction in the number of road crashes, deaths and injuries.
	There is a pressing case in our urban areas for 20 mph zones—not just on new estates, where that is often already the case, but in established areas. I am pleased to say that many years ago, when I was a local councillor, my badgering led to the introduction of the first 20 mph speed limit in Essex, in a Victorian-Edwardian high-density residential area. Twenty miles per hour is more than fast enough in most of our residential suburbs. We need more of those speed limits, and I urge the Government to press on. We have a proud record in forcing down the number of road deaths, but more can be achieved. I believe that with all-party support it can be achieved, but the Treasury must realise that, although investment costs money, saving lives saves the public purse a lot of money as well.

Norman Baker: We are debating an important subject, and although this is the fag end of a Thursday afternoon, it is disappointing that only 10 Members are present—including the umpire and two linesmen, if I may use a Wimbledon analogy this week. However, that has allowed the House to experience the undoubted pleasure of hearing two successive Liberal Democrat speakers.
	I agree with what was said by both the Chairman of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the way in which the press and other media portray accidents on the road, as opposed to the railways or, indeed, any other mode of transport. The hon. Member for Carlisle mentioned Grayrigg; he could have also referred to Hatfield. I gather that, notwithstanding the significant loss of life in that terrible railway accident, more people in the United Kingdom died on the roads that weekend.
	It is also true that railway accidents such as those are thankfully very unusual. However, they skew public perceptions, and they also skew Government policy. The Government of the day are under tremendous pressure to "make the railways safer", but the railways are terribly safe. We end up spending unnecessary amounts on improving an already safe record on the railways and not improving safety on the roads, where, by and large, the deaths occur. It is a case of complacency, not so much on the part of the Government or even the House as on the part of our friends in the media, who tend to report the unusual rather than the everyday. Health is an example: they are all very interested in swine flu but not particularly interested in heart disease or cancer, which are the big killers in our society. There is a need for perspective to be brought into the reporting of these matters and into the Government policy that ensues.

David Drew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise for not being here for the start of the debate. As a cyclist, one of the things that really bugs me is the continuing use of mobile phones by a small number of recidivist motorists. The media should show these people up, because the lack of attention shown by someone driving who is on a mobile phone will cause accidents. Does he agree that it is shameful that the media will not take up that issue?

Norman Baker: I agree, and my colleagues have collected some figures on the continuing breaking of the law. I hope that, as with drink driving over the last 20 or 30 years, such activity will become socially unacceptable and the number of people engaging in it will gradually diminish. The reports of what some people do while driving astonish me, whether it is drying their hair or engaging in something far more interesting but definitely unsafe on the roads. We need to get people to take their driving more seriously.  [ Interruption. ] I was being very diplomatic there, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope you realise that; more details can be given subsequently if you need to know what I am referring to.
	The Select Committee report is helpful in highlighting a number of key issues, and it is good news that the number of people killed on Britain's roads in 2007 was down; as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) said, it fell below 3,000 for the first time since 1926. If one looks at the Government's road safety targets, from their 2000 paper "Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone", one sees that, by and large, they are on track in terms of the reductions of deaths and serious accidents set out in that paper. To be fair to the Government, they have achieved a good deal in this area—credit where it is due. That is not to say that sufficient has been done. We all, including the Minister, want to see the figures reduced further.
	The question is whether the figures are accurate, and the Chairman of the Select Committee referred to that in her opening comments. Recommendation 4 of the report referred to STATS19, and I note that the Government say in their reply that a review of that is being carried out now. It is important that we get the figures right, but there appears to be a lack of correlation between the official figures and what hospital data show, which suggests that the figures are not always accurate. We all know from our constituencies that what are called "minor accidents" nevertheless cause injury on many occasions but are not actually reported because people sort things out and deal with the insurance companies themselves, without the police being called.
	The police are to some extent backing off road issues in a way that I do not always find entirely helpful. They backed off on parking; it has become decriminalised in many areas and, where it is not, the police are still backing off. To some extent the police are backing off on speed enforcement. They are relying on cameras at key locations to pick up those who are speeding. They assume that those cameras are covering the worst areas and many forces are not policing outside those areas. That is a worry.

Robert Goodwill: Could another reason for that "backing off" be that we have had a 20 per cent. reduction in the number of traffic police over the last 10 years and that drink driving is no longer a key performance indicator for police forces?

Norman Baker: There is undoubtedly a case as to how the police are asked to prioritise their time. I do not want to go too far down that track, Madam Deputy Speaker, as this is not a police debate, but any element of the public sector—whether it is the police or local councils—will respond to the target-driven culture that we now have. If those targets are accurately and sensibly chosen, that can be productive. Sometimes targets that are chosen end up with peculiar and distorting results. Some police forces have sought to increase the number of crimes detected in order to get their figures looking better, although the crimes they detect are sometimes very minor. They are not spending their time looking at more serious crimes about which the public are more worried. There can be that distortion, therefore.
	Drink-driving has been mentioned by several Members, and it is undoubtedly a serious issue. My gut feeling is that while it has became socially unacceptable over the past 30 or 40 years—we have come a long way from "one for the road," which is how things were back then—that good work is beginning to be unpicked a bit. The old ways are creeping back again, and people are beginning to think, "Well, we'll just chance it." That might be because either the consequences are diminishing or the horror adverts are not on television as much as they used to be, or perhaps because the fear of being caught, which is always a main driver—no pun intended—in deterring people, has lessened because they do not think they will be stopped by the police. However, the fact is that 16 per cent. of all road deaths involve a drink-driver; that is a 2007 figure. To pick up on a point made by the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, drivers aged between 17 and 19 are 10 times more likely to have a drink-drive crash than drivers of other ages. Just for clarity, let me say that earlier I was not necessarily advocating an increase in the driving age to 18; I was merely genuinely asking about the Committee's view on the matter, because there is a legitimate discussion to be had on it.
	I believe there is a strong case for the drink-drive limit to be reduced from 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood to 50 mg. International comparisons reveal that our limit is shared by Ireland, Luxembourg and Malta, but the 0.5 mg per ml limit is much more common across Europe: it is the limit for Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain. That is where the centre of gravity lies across the European Union—and some countries even have a lower limit than 0.5.

Eric Martlew: I looked into this, too, and the hon. Gentleman is right, but does he realise that in a lot of the countries he mentioned there is no driving ban? Instead there is a fine, or perhaps a few points. Is it not better to have a higher level and a draconian punishment than to go the French way of reducing the level but only giving a fine?

Norman Baker: I do not advocate the view that people should face only a fine for what is a serious offence, but I think the 0.8 limit is too high, as some individuals can be within the limit yet their driving capacity is still impaired. I also do not think it is sensible policy that if someone is marginally above 0.8 they will face what the hon. Gentleman calls a draconian ban, whereas if they are just below that 0.8 limit they will not face any penalty whatever. That seems to me to be a rather extreme situation. I think there is a case for looking at this again, therefore, and I believe that 0.5 would be a sensible limit. That would allow someone who is going to drive to have one drink; after all, people who are driving should not have any more than that.
	There is also an issue to do with drug-driving. As the Minister will know, a recent survey by Brake found that one in 10 young drivers has driven under the influence of drugs. The Government recently announced that they are creating a specification for a roadside drugs test, which is very welcome. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) said last month, it was stated in a parliamentary answer to a question he asked in February 2008 that
	"departmental advisers were continuing their work to produce such a specification and...hoped to reach a conclusion soon."—[ Official Report, 4 June 2009; Vol. 493, c. 147WH.]
	That was said well over a year ago now, so it would be very welcome if the Minister could give us an update on the matter.
	There is also the problem of uninsured drivers, as Members have mentioned. Uninsured drivers kill four people on our roads every week and were responsible in 2006 for 36,000 crashes and 27,000 injuries. However, the average fine for uninsured driving has fallen by 13 per cent. since 1997, from £224 to £194. That is much too low. As politicians, we cannot interfere with the courts, but I suggest to the Minister that either the minimum fine should be increased or some guidance should be issued by the relevant Law Officers to draw attention to this matter, because the cost of buying insurance is now often more than the fine for driving without insurance, and that is a nonsensical situation.
	My next point relates to speeding. I believe that there is a case for a default 20 mph limit in concentrated urban areas. I use the word "default" because there may be cases—for example, on a bus route or a trunk road going through an urban area—where it is sensible to have a limit of 30 mph. A default 20 mph limit, especially on side roads, is a sensible safety measure. When I was a young lad we were able to go out playing in the streets. There used to be something called "safe streets". That is what we used to have. I do not see children playing in the streets so much these days, and that is partly because they are not safe any more. We ought to do rather more to ensure that we make our residential areas safer for children. Whether they are playing or simply crossing the road, they are not as safe as they could be at the moment. I am sure that we would all agree that there is nothing more tragic than a child being injured in a road accident.

Eric Martlew: I think that the hon. Gentleman might be looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses. As a child, I used to play out on the street but I was badly injured in a road accident. It was probably more dangerous then than it is now.

Norman Baker: I am sorry about that particular accident, but I do not think I am looking at this with rose-tinted spectacles; there were fewer vehicles then for one thing. Irrespective of whether the past was better, however, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we need to do better in residential areas and a 20 mph limit may be one way forward.
	My next point relates to shared streets and other measures that we can take to make our urban areas safer. I am very interested in the debate on shared streets and I have seen some of the examples, in the Netherlands and elsewhere, where road signs have been taken away altogether. Having too many road signs does not simply clutter up the country; it also switches drivers off, because if there are too many signs they do not notice any of them. We need to be rather cleverer about the use of signs. Taking away all indications from drivers as to where they are makes them slow down, because they consider whether they are in a pedestrian area or an area for cars, and what will happen around the corner. They drive more slowly and more safely as a result. A shared street is being introduced in Lewes. By the way, it has a little lip to help blind and visually-impaired people, for whom there is a genuine concern. It is not fully open yet, but I think it will be very effective in reducing traffic speeds along a busy road in Lewes.
	My final point is that we need to have cycle tracks that are safe. This country has a high level of cycle ownership, but quite a low level of cycle usage. People often tell us that they do not feel that it is safe to cycle. On the continent there are far more dedicated cycleways and even in this country there is much heavier use of bicycles where towns and cities have identified dedicated cycle routes. This is good not only for people's health, but for the environment, and it is also an important safety issue. It is not safe on our roads for cyclists when they are competing with lorries, as often happens on narrow roads. People want to be able to cycle safely and they are entitled to do so, and I think that the Government should generally be making more effort to promote cycling and make it safer in our urban areas.

Robert Goodwill: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), the Chair of the Select Committee, on its report. As a former member of the Committee, I know what good work it does and I remember with great affection her predecessor, Gwyneth Dunwoody, who always treated its members kindly—that generosity of spirit was not always extended to those hapless witnesses who gave evidence before us.
	I join everybody in the House in welcoming the very good figures on road casualties that came out last week; 408 people are alive in this country today who would not have been alive had it not been for the reduction. I hope that this country is clawing its way back to the top of the European safety record. I believe that only Holland remains ahead of us and I look forward to the years ahead, when we may well make further improvements. I think that tribute has been paid to a lot of different factors—among others, the actions of successive Governments and vehicle design. May I pay tribute to Britain's drivers, because these improvements are largely due to the sensible attitude of the majority of Britain's drivers?
	I do not wish to rain on the Minister's parade, but there is one proviso in those figures. The whole of the European Union experienced, on average, a 15 per cent. reduction in casualties last year. That was caused by a number of factors, the first of which has been mentioned: the fact that there was a noticeable reduction in speed on our roads last year when the price of petrol and diesel reached the dizzy heights that it did. We also saw, for the first time since the 1970s, a reduction in traffic on our roads. Last year, there was a 0.8 per cent. reduction because of the recessionary pressures in the economy.
	Although I have seen the figures on motorcycle casualties, which showed a slight increase, I wonder how much worse the figures would have been had we had a warm, decent summer. Many of those casualties are the born-again bikers—the people who passed their test on a Triumph Bonneville and now go out and buy a Ducati or a Fireblade and find that although the engine size is about the same the bike has tremendously more performance. Sadly, all too often on BBC Radio York on a Sunday afternoon I hear of yet another casualty on the rural roads of north Yorkshire. If we get more weather like this, I fear that we might well see more of that type of accident. Of course, although motorcycles make up only 1 per cent. of road traffic, they contribute to nearly a fifth of deaths on our roads.
	There are a couple of areas where the Government could, perhaps, be doing a little better. In saying that, I would not want to detract from the real progress that has been made in a number of areas. My first area of concern, however, is the motorcycle driving test. As the Minister will know, when the new manoeuvres aspect of the test came in, Ministers or officials failed to notice that the swerve and stop test had to be carried out at 50 kph. As we know, that is 31 mph—more than the speed limit on urban roads, which meant that the Government had to institute a programme of setting up large multipurpose test centres around the country.
	That has had two results. First, motorcyclists have to drive far greater distances to access a test. The nearest test centre to my constituency is Hull, which means more than an hour's journey. If it is winter and a young rider is on a moped or a small capacity motorcycle, it is rather a daunting journey. A number of people have been put off taking their test because of the larger distance involved. Secondly, and perhaps more worryingly, there have been a number of incidents, some of which have resulted in injury, during the controversial swerve and stop test, which must be carried out, as I mentioned, at 50 kph. In fact, in the first three weeks there were 14 incidents, I think, three of which resulted in injuries so serious that the person had to go to hospital.
	Before today's debate, most of the reports of concerns about this matter have been largely hearsay. I have a couple of letters that I have received, however. One is from a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). She says:
	"I am a teacher...We are desperately saving for a mortgage and to start a family, but needed transport to get to work...I am too scared to take the test. I have already heard of 2 accidents in the first few days, including a broken arm due to the new manoeuvres that you are required to take. Riding instructors have been speaking out against it, but the current government's agencies have been ignoring expert advice."
	I have another e-mail that I received only last week from a lady called Jean Galvin, who says:
	"I am an older female motorcyclist who is returning to motorcycling after a number of years. I attempted to take the new module 1 test on 28th May and failed. I have no issue with the majority of the test and applaud the testing of slow manoeuvring and clutch control, but I was horrified at the swerve test.
	I took this on a 125 which I had to violently accelerate around a curve in order to reach the speed of 50 kph. I was required to do this despite approaching a hazard. On my first attempt, I reached a speed of 49 kph and felt sure that if I had attempted to swerve in the required manner I would crash (as have many others). I used my best judgment and avoided the hazard in a safe way i.e. without the swerve.
	All of my instincts tell me not to accelerate toward a hazard—how can this be expected of any motorcyclist. It is now my intention to continue retaking my CBT"—
	that is, her compulsory basic training—
	"and to ride my 125 until such a time as the"
	Driving Standards Agency
	"comes to its senses and changes this situation. My heart goes out to the family of the person who will become the first fatality."
	Riders are being deterred from taking training and from taking the test. Having taken the compulsory basic training, which is basically like riding round cones in a car park—actually, it is better than that, but it is very basic initial training—riders realise that they can ride for two years without taking a test. I am concerned that many riders will continue to ride for two years, take the CBT and ride for two years again. That will result in less well trained motorcycle riders on our roads.
	The second point that I want to raise is the issue of drink and drug-driving. The Opposition do not intend to reduce the drink-drive limit, for the very reasons that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) stated. Many other EU countries have lower limits, but they do not have the gold standard ban. As we have seen with speeding, giving people points on their licence and fines does not deter them.
	We feel that retaining the ban is very important, and for that reason we will not follow the example of other EU countries. However, I applaud the campaigns carried out by Ministers during the summer and at Christmas to raise awareness of drink-driving. If we get directly elected police commissioners in this country, they might want to put prioritising the enforcement of drink-driving in their election manifestos.

Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the double approach of a lower drink-drive limit and the threat of disqualification is more likely to ensure that people are less inclined to drink-drive than what he is proposing?

Robert Goodwill: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but feel that his proposal may be seen as too draconian. All too often when we read of an accident in the newspapers, it involves a person who is twice or three times over the limit. We need to make sure that we are policing the existing limit before we move further.
	I turn now to the issue of drug-driving, in respect of which the UK is lagging behind many other countries in the world. We still rely on the field impairment test, which was used for drink-driving before Barbara Castle introduced the breathalyser. Drivers suspected of being under the influence of drugs are expected to walk down a white line at the side of the road.
	It is 2009. Countries such as France, Germany, Belgium, Romania—for goodness' sake!—Croatia, Italy, Australia, Spain, Switzerland, Finland, Iceland, the Czech Republic and Luxembourg all have roadside drug-testing equipment that is deployed and used by police. Why is the UK lagging behind?
	I have seen the tests demonstrated. Using a saliva test at the roadside, they test for up to two drugs, although a new generation of equipment will soon test simultaneously for six different drugs.

Norman Baker: I promise not to report the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Romanian ambassador, but does he agree that the problem does not involve illegal drugs only and that it is important that any test should take account of prescribed drugs as well?

Robert Goodwill: That is true, but GPs also have a responsibility. I tabled a parliamentary question recently to ask how many GPs, having prescribed a drug for which driving was forbidden after use, then reported to the driving licence authorities that the patient involved should not continue to drive while taking that drug. In many cases, GPs may be reluctant to put their relationship with patients at risk by grassing them up, so to speak, to Swansea.
	We need a debate on how we should treat drug-driving in the courts if we had drug-testing equipment out in the field. It would be difficult to set a safe limit for the drugs that we are talking about because they are illegal, and that is not the case with alcohol. I have not discussed this matter at any length with my colleagues who shadow the Justice Department or the Home Office but, although we could make it an offence for a person to have any drug at all in his system, I suspect that the Crown Prosecution Service might have to issue guidelines about the level of intoxication at which a prosecution could be brought.
	There is a precedent with speeding, for which the guidelines laid down by the Association of Chief Police Officers make it clear that a prosecution may be brought if a driver does 10 per cent. over the limit, plus 2 mph. Another example might involve theft: if, God forbid, I stole an orange from a stall in Pimlico market I may be let off with a warning, but if I hijacked a 38-tonner full of oranges I would be for the high jump. We need a genuine debate about how we police drug-driving, once the equipment is being used and deployed. I think that all parties would like to work constructively together to try to reach a solution to that vexing problem.
	Young drivers have been mentioned, and we have certainly looked carefully at ideas such as raising the driving age to 18 and limiting the number of young people to two in a car. We are giving conflicting advice: we are saying that, if young people go out together, they should nominate a driver; but surely, in those circumstances, it is a good idea to have four or five people in the car if the driver has not been drinking. We have rejected the idea of a curfew, but we are very well aware of the risk to young drivers—it is the single biggest killer of 15 to 24-year-olds in the OECD countries, and the death rate among under-25s is double the normal death rate.

Eric Martlew: To clarify, the Opposition's position is to do nothing. Is that correct?

Robert Goodwill: The Opposition's position is to look at how the driving test can be made more appropriate and to make the driving test better but not necessarily harder. I have discussed with the Minister's predecessor the young men who pass their tests with flying colours, but the rather nervous drivers who perhaps scrape through the test are often the ones who are killed in accidents or incidents. So we need to make the test more appropriate to the conditions that young drivers face.
	During the consultation that, I think, has recently closed, we suggested taking the manoeuvres out of the driving test—the three-point turn, parallel parking and reversing around a corner—to buy an additional 15 or 20 minutes during the test when other driving skills, such as perhaps driving at higher speeds, could be examined to try to determine which young drivers are likely to be at risk.
	Rogue drivers have been mentioned. As the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) said, the fines that have been levied for having no insurance policy are often much less than the premiums paid by 17-year-olds. I do not know whether many hon. Members saw the "Top Gear" programme a couple of weeks ago, when Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond posed as 17-year-olds when trying to insure their cars. I must add that, of course, they did so over the telephone. I am sure that Mr. Hammond might just have been able to carry it off, but the other two would have certainly failed miserably. They were quoted punitive premiums, so it is no wonder that many young people decide to become rogue drivers.
	Sadly, these days, it is very easy to be a rogue driver, given the ease of cloning vehicles. Police around the country are deploying many more automatic number plate detection systems, which are very good at picking up cars that are not insured or MOT-ed, or those that have been flagged up on the police national computer as being of interest, but it is very easy to steal a number plate from another identical car or even to go on to the internet to buy a so-called show plate that can be placed on a car and used to clone another one.
	Two years ago, I went on to one of those show plate sites on the internet and managed to buy number plates identical to those on the Prime Minister's Jaguar XJ6. Surely, if I can clone the Prime Minister's car, any car in the country could be cloned. I hasten to add that I did not put the plates on to my car, so congestion charge notices have not been arriving at No. 10 Downing street. However, the Government thought that they had ticked the box and come up with a solution because one had to show photographic proof of identity, along with the car's log book, when presenting oneself at a garage to buy number plates.
	Sadly, one can go to a variety of internet sites that advertise show plates, and although there is a warning at the bottom of the website saying that the plate must not be used on vehicles on the road, the plates are identical to the ones provided legitimately and can be used very easily to clone vehicles. Similarly, when plates are attached to a car, they can be removed and placed on another car. I suggest that simple, basic technology—the word "technology" does not even describe it—such as tamper-proof number plates that are broken if removed, could prevent such cloning from going on and mean fewer rogue drivers on our roads. All too often, it is the rogue drivers, who are not insured, who may be disqualified and whose cars might not be roadworthy who are involved in accidents on our roads.
	On speed enforcement, in some ways the Government could be accused of being a one-club golfer, given their reliance on fixed-speed cameras. As we see from the large number of people who have been fined because of those cameras, they are not even effective at stopping people speeding in areas where there are cameras, never mind where there are no cameras. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) mentioned reactive signs. A reactive sign costs only £7,000, whereas a fixed-speed camera is £40,000. We look with interest at the experiment in Swindon, where the Conservative-controlled council has withdrawn from the safety partnership and is deploying the money in other ways to try to improve safety on its roads. My constituency is in north Yorkshire, where we do not have any fixed-speed cameras, and it is interesting that it has never been drawn to my attention that improvements in road safety are any lesser in north Yorkshire than anywhere else in the country.

Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the view of Her Majesty's official Opposition that breaking the law should not be condoned?

Robert Goodwill: Certainly, we absolutely condemn anyone breaking the speed limits. I am talking about how we can effectively police those speed limits. I went to Bradford recently—I am not used to driving there—and saw a lot of cars slowing down to go past the cameras, but speeding up afterwards. Local people know where the cameras are. Hundreds of thousands of people have been caught by the cameras. We need a more intelligent approach to the issue, and we need to look carefully at where cameras are located.
	I am a big fan of time-over-distance, or average, cameras. Where they have been used in Scotland, they have been very effective. I say that because they have caught so few people, and surely that is the test of whether a camera system is effective. It is effective if it does not catch people speeding because it deters them from speeding. When such cameras are used on contraflows where there are motorway roadworks, they have worked very well at keeping speed down. Interestingly, on motorways where there are no roadworks, where time-over-distance cameras have been deployed, journey times have improved. If a person speeds down the fast lane of a motorway, causing other people to pull in, it often increases the journey time for many other people on the road.
	We have rejected the suggestions that Ministers made earlier in the year that there should be a blanket 50 mph speed limit on rural roads. Where lower speed limits are appropriate, they should be introduced. Similarly, 20 mph speed limits should be introduced where they are appropriate, but there should not necessarily be a blanket introduction over an area. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Colchester talk about the warning signs that he had seen in Derbyshire outside a school. That system is used widely in New Zealand; head teachers can deploy signs that light up at important times of day, such as when children are arriving or leaving.
	We are looking closely at the system in Spain—I do not know whether the Minister has heard of it—where a reactive sign is placed just before a light-controlled pedestrian crossing. If a motorist triggers that sign, it deploys the red light on the pelican crossing, so that he has a "time out" there. Not only is he given the inconvenience of having to wait, but drivers in the cars behind him—and, more importantly, drivers coming in the other direction, who have eye contact with him—can show their disapproval.
	I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, again for presenting her report. There is much in it that is worthy of further action. Although I have been a little critical of the Government in one or two areas, the vast majority of what they are doing takes us in the right direction. If it was not, the figures would not be so good. However, I would like the Minister to look closely at the issues of the motorcycle test, better roadside drug-testing equipment and how we can clamp down on rogue drivers by cutting out all the bogus, counterfeit number plates around the country. One police officer told me that it was estimated that there were 20,000 cloned vehicles on our road.

Paul Clark: We have had an interesting, if short, debate on a fundamentally important issue, and I am delighted to respond to it. At the outset, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) for her work in chairing the Select Committee, and for presenting us with an important report on an issue that affects so many of us.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), among others, has often said that the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads, compared to those involving other modes of transport, is appalling. Before I turn to the clearly heartening statistics that were released last week, let me say that I agree that even one death is one too many. Members from all parts of the House strive to reduce the numbers, and although there should never be any cosy relationship between the Government and the Select Committee—or, indeed, the Opposition—we share that goal of reducing road casualties. Collaborative work and ideas will help us to achieve what many of us want, which is zero deaths.
	Last week's published statistics for 2008 showed excellent progress on reducing the toll of injury and, particularly, death on British roads. Several Members have referred to the 14 per cent. reduction in deaths since 2007, and that occurred across all transport modes: pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, and occupants of cars, buses, coaches and goods vehicles.
	In addition, the total number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads fell by 7 per cent., and has fallen by 40 per cent. from our 1994 to 1998 average baseline, meaning that the target that we set for 2010 has now been met. I shall return to the question of whether the new targets are stretching enough. All parts of the House welcome the figures, but it is important not to get carried away. I said as much last Thursday at the Road Safety Foundation's launch of the European Road Assessment Programme's statistics, when I remarked that the figures were extremely welcome but that last year was economically extraordinary, combining the tail end of a spike in fuel prices with the beginnings of the global recession. That may have had some effect on transport levels, and therefore on casualty levels on our roads. Yet the trend is still downwards, and I want to put on the record my thanks to everyone in the transport industries who has helped us to achieve those results.
	We should not get carried away with having only—only—2,538 dying on our roads in a year, because that is still a dreadful statistic. We need to work on it and to do much better, and as the Select Committee Chairman said at the beginning of our proceedings, there is an ongoing debate about how to continue to reduce those figures. At the end of April we responded to the Committee's report and launched a consultation on our new long-term road safety strategy, which will come into force in 2010. Although it draws on many important lessons that we have learned from the current strategy, it sets out a fresh approach to road safety, proposals for new targets and measures to help us meet them.
	Despite recent successes, current casualty rates—death rates, in particular—are far too high, and although we have reduced serious injuries on our roads by 41 per cent. in the current strategy, deaths have come down by only 29 per cent. Therefore, we propose a bold strategy for the period beyond 2010, with a long-term vision not just to improve road safety, but to make Britain's roads the safest in the world.
	Our primary national target for 2020, therefore, is to reduce deaths by one third. We recognise that that is ambitious, but we believe that the target is grounded in reality and achievable. We also propose that serious injuries be reduced by 33 per cent. by 2020, giving local authorities a combined benchmark for deaths and serious injuries against which to measure their progress.

Eric Martlew: I heard what the Minister said about the possibility that last year might have been exceptional. However, deaths are down to about 2,500 and he is talking about bringing them down to 2,000 in 12 years' time. That does not seem too ambitious to me.

Paul Clark: I said that I would talk later about whether the targets were stretching. When we compiled and presented the report and the strategy, we did not have the benefit of the 2008 casualty figures, which are recognised across the Chamber as an extremely welcome and substantial reduction. We are carrying out a consultation and we will reflect on the targets in the light of the figures that we published last week, and of the consultation and the responses to it. We will certainly take those issues on board.
	Under the current strategy we are saying that road deaths and serious injuries to children should be reduced by at least half by 2020. Our progress on reducing child casualties has been better since 2000; we have reduced child deaths and serious injuries by 55 per cent. from our baseline. However, that progress is for the nought-to-16 age group, and progress has been much less marked for the slightly older age groups. We therefore propose to extend the target to cover 16 and 17-year-olds.

Norman Baker: May I caution the Minister? I suspect that one of the reasons for the improvement in the nought-to-16 age group figure is that there has been an increase in the use of vehicles to take children to school—partly for social reasons and partly because many parents are concerned about whether it is safe for children to walk to school these days. There may be a false assumption that the figure represents progress, given that there may have been a reduction in the number of children walking.

Paul Clark: According to the figures, the numbers of those walking and cycling have increased. If I remember correctly, about 49 per cent. of young people cycle or walk to school; obviously, we want to maintain and increase that level. I shall deal later with some of the other issues relating to cycling and walking to school that have been raised by Members in this debate.
	Lastly, we propose a target to reduce the rate of death and serious injury among pedestrians and cyclists, per kilometre travelled, by half by 2020. That has been chosen in the light of the pressing need to increase the amount of walking and cycling, for environmental and public health reasons, and to make them safer at the same time. That raises the point made by the Select Committee, which said that road safety is not just an issue for the Department for Transport; it is a much wider issue that requires cross-Government, cross-agency and cross-country working if we are to achieve many of our targets.

Robert Goodwill: The Minister will be aware that Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, has applied to the Department to allow cyclists to turn left on red, to reduce the hazard from large vehicles' back wheels as they turn left as well. Can the Minister give us any news on that application?

Paul Clark: I cannot at this stage. Although on the face of it that idea might seem to be straightforward and to achieve a given goal, we have to make sure that we are not opening up another area that gives cause for concern; that applies to some of the other issues that have been raised today as well.
	All users of any mode of transport—walking on two legs, cycling on two wheels, riding a motorcycle or being behind the wheel of a car or van—have a responsibility to be safe, for their own sake and that of others. A point has been raised about the reliability of STATS19, the police road accident data. The way in which those are used feeds into local authority statistics. Equally, we are doing work on the accident and emergency results from the health survey and the national travel survey, which include data and questions relating to road safety. We do not dispute that there may be differences between those figures, but we do not accept that there is any great difference in the degree of under-reporting compared with previous years. Of course there will be incidents where the police are not involved but ultimately—24 hours later, say—someone feels a twinge and ends up going to the accident and emergency department; whiplash is a good example of that sort of injury. We are doing more work in this regard, but the reliability of the data has not changed to any great degree since yesteryear.
	We propose to make our driver testing and training regimes better and to crack down further on the most dangerous behaviours. We believe that our regulatory regime is broadly fit for purpose. Our philosophy must therefore be to concentrate on improving the delivery of road safety—in particular, homing in on the roads, people and behaviours most associated with casualties on the network. We need to tackle the "hard cases" in road safety. Many of the steps that we are taking on data collection and so on are fundamental in getting the more detailed, homed-in data that we require to tackle the minority of people who cause many of the accidents, whether on categories of road such as rural single carriageways or on roads in residential areas.
	To improve safety on rural roads, which see some 60 per cent. of all road deaths but only 42 per cent. of traffic, we propose to publish maps every year highlighting the main roads with the poorest safety records so that highway authorities can take action with their partners to tackle those routes. We will also encourage them to reduce speed limits on rural single carriageways, on a targeted basis, from the current 60 mph limit. The level of danger on these roads varies widely—indeed, hon. Members have referred to several examples in their own constituencies—and we want authorities to reduce speed limits on the roads that have the most crashes.
	We will continue to encourage investment in improved highway engineering, as it is clear that such schemes are continuing to reduce casualties at relatively low cost. We want local authorities to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists by establishing 20 mph zones in streets of a primarily residential nature. Those will not be major through routes which happen to have a few houses on them, but streets whose clear primary purpose is access to homes. That is what must happen: the streets are for living in, not dying in.
	Work and investment have been going on through programmes such as Kerbcraft, whereby youngsters learn about the importance of respecting roads; it is about having the freedom to go out on the roads but knowing how to use them well for walking, using buses and cycling. I particularly draw attention to the £140 million three-year programme for Bikeability training, where it looks as though we will be able to achieve a year early our target of some 500,000 youngsters getting the skills and confidence to use our roads safely, with mums and dads being confident that their sons or daughters have those skills.
	I turn to issues of deprivation. The incidence of accidents in certain areas is a great cause for concern, and work is continuing on several projects. For example, there have been projects in Oldham, where we have put money into adults' road safety skills; in Hounslow—with the Somali community if I recall correctly, to help with a particular issue—and in other areas where we are considering how young people in particular are affected by advertising about speed and road use.
	I can also draw attention to the manual for streets, a document to which the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) referred. It is available to local authority planners, and relates to new developments as well as existing ones, It gives us the opportunity to take forward a number of the issues that hon. Members have raised.
	We are not only looking to continue to work in partnership with the motor industry to boost vehicle safety, but seeking to raise awareness of driver and passenger safety. We expect crash protection improvements to focus on particular problems or types of accident, and we believe that advanced vehicle safety systems that help drivers and motorcyclists avoid crashes have significant potential to reduce casualties over the next decade.
	We need to consider how we can influence behaviour, particularly on the matters included in our consultation last year on road safety compliance. It set out a number of proposals to crack down on motorists who endanger not only their own lives but those of others. The proposals include more penalty points for extreme speeding and strong measures to discourage the utterly irresponsible minority who drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
	We have taken a number of other steps, including increasing the work of the successful Think! brand of road safety advertising and the messages that we send through it. We have also recently published the results of our learning to drive consultation, which was launched last year, and will now proceed with plans to strengthen the way in which people learn to drive and are tested, and subsequently to encourage a culture of continued and lifelong learning for drivers.
	I turn to some of the many points that were raised in the debate. I wish the hon. Member for Colchester luck with the A140, which he believes he will be using a great deal on his way to Norwich. The work of the Road Safety Foundation, whose launch event he attended last Thursday, helps to identify the critical roads that have a high incidence of deaths or serious injuries, so that we can focus money and resources on improving them. That is a matter for local highways authorities.
	The Chairman of the Transport Committee talked about learning to drive. We are making changes to the theory test from this October, and the practical driving test from October 2010. Competence while driving independently will be brought into the test. We seriously considered graduated licensing, but our conclusion was that although it would reduce the exposure of drivers, particularly young people, to certain risks, it would not provide proper experience. Equally—I believe that my hon. Friend touched on this point—it could reduce their ability to get to their jobs, let alone social events. Our belief is that we should ensure that education and awareness are beefed up.
	Motorcyclists are a critical group of particular concern, and we need to do a great deal for them. One reason why the swerve test is in place is that a number of motorcyclists are injured on our roads because they have to swerve to miss opening car doors or other obstacles in the road.
	Finally, I pay tribute to Mr. and Mrs. Bell, who came to see me yesterday, for their sterling work in light of the tragic death of their daughter Jordan. I recognise their hard work. We are studying drink-driving and gathering more data, and also studying drug-driving. There are, of course, already penalties for driving under the influence of drugs, but we are considering whether to create new offences to get a better message across. We want drug-driving to become socially unacceptable, just as drink-driving has done.
	Let me say—
	 Debate interrupted, and Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54(4)).
	 The Deputy Speaker put the deferred Questions (Standing Order No. 54(5)).

Estimates 2009-10
	 — 
	Department for Children, Schools and Families

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010, for expenditure by the Department for Children, Schools and Families—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £32,152,966,000 be authorised for use as set out in HC 514,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £32,181,534,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.

Department for Transport

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010, for expenditure by the Department for Transport—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £8,812,695,000 be authorised for use as set out in HC 514,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £7,734,837,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs as so set out, and
	(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.
	 The Deputy Speaker then put the Questions on the outstanding Estimates (Standing Order No. 55).

Estimates 2009-10

Resolved,
	That, for the year ending with 31 March 2010—
	(1) further resources, not exceeding £240,889,839,000 be authorised for use for defence and civil services as set out in HC 513, HC 514, HC 515 and HC 525,
	(2) a further sum, not exceeding £251,679,943,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services as so set out, and
	(3) limits as set out in HC 513, HC 514 and HC 525 be set on appropriations in aid.— ( Mr. Stephen Timms .)
	 Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions;
	That the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Liam Byrne, Mr. Stephen Timms, Sarah McCarthy-Fry and Ian Pearson introduce the Bill.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading
	Mr. Stephen Timms accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the service of the year ending with 31 March 2010; to appropriate the supply authorised in this Session of Parliament for the service of the year ending with 31 March 2010; and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 119).

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(David Wright.)

Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate the subject of school bus safety, and it is perhaps appropriate that this debate should follow that we have just had on road safety.
	There is a problem in that the statistics are not collected specifically on school bus safety. One of my proposals is that they should be monitored. I first raised the issue in the House 11 years ago, when I introduced a ten-minute Bill. Although there has been a reduction in the number of accidents and deaths reported, there are still too many. A number of them could have been prevented if other measures had been adopted, such as those that I have proposed and on which I should like to engage the Department.
	The Department for Transport has data for road casualties in Great Britain by year only up to 2007. Over a three-year period, the number of fatalities among school pupils when travelling to or from school in a bus or tram went down from 21 to eight, while the number of casualties went down from 424 to 338. Although that is an improvement, my area has been shocked by a number of incidents, including two fatalities within two weeks of each other in the past year or so, when 15-year-old Robyn Oldham and 12-year-old Alexander Milne were tragically killed having just got off a school bus.
	Robyn had just moved into the area and was travelling home from school at Turriff academy when she was struck down by a car, seconds after getting off the school bus. Robyn's mum Carla has been campaigning vigorously to raise awareness of the dangers as part of the Bus Stop! and School Bus Safety Group campaigns, to which I shall return. Just a fortnight after that, Alexander Milne—Zander to his family—was travelling home from school in Fraserburgh when he was also knocked down by a car. I have today spoken to Zander's father Philip and Robyn's mum Carla, who are both adamant that had there been a rule not to overtake a stationary bus, their children would be alive today. The House will therefore understand their strong feelings about the proposal which the Government are resisting for reasons that I hope I can engage with in this debate.
	As a result of those accidents, the campaign for improved safety on buses has been stepped up. It has gained support across a wide spectrum of councils, councillors, parliamentarians from the Scottish Parliament and from this House, and many local residents. All have concluded that improvements can be made, and many believe that changes should be effected through legislation so that a nationwide policy can be put in place, although I hope the Minister will understand that I am looking not only for legislation but for greater safety awareness and an opportunity to make everyone who uses the roads aware of the dangers so that they will behave in a way that will reduce the likelihood of such accidents.
	The School Bus Safety Group is run by Ron Beaty from Gardenstown in Aberdeenshire. His granddaughter Erin was seriously injured in a school bus incident five years ago. The group has set up a website—www.schoolbus.org.uk—and quite a lot of its proposals have been incorporated into the School Bus (Safety) Bill, which I have presented to the House. The Minister has seen the Bill and responded to it, and I hope that I shall be able to engage him on that subject tonight and subsequently.
	The Bill has cross-party support, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the hon. Members for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) and for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and to my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), all of whom have supported it. The Minister will be aware of the work done by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside on the Yellow School Bus Commission last year, which was widely welcomed by many campaigners.
	This is not a back-of-an-envelope Bill. It is a short Bill containing very specific proposals, and I have consulted widely on it and continue to do so. I am not suggesting that it would be a definitive law. I am not even asking the Government to adopt the Bill, much as I would like them to do so, but I would ask them to recognise that it contains serious proposals, which might need to be refined or modified but which could make a serious contribution to road safety.
	Every day, parents across the country entrust their children's safety to bus companies on the school run, although I am not suggesting for a minute that those companies and their drivers take that responsibility lightly. Nevertheless, I would like to engage with the Minister on some of the ideas in the Bill, and explain why I believe that they would contribute to road safety. The Bill suggests that school buses should
	"be single decked, be fitted with three point safety belts on every seat, be fitted with large external 'stop' signs which must be activated when the bus is stationary at bus stops, be brightly and distinctly coloured, and display prominently on the interior and exterior notices containing safety advice for drivers, passengers and other road users".
	Those are very specific proposals. I have also proposed that consideration should be given to the no-overtaking rule, and that a school bus safety council be established to monitor what is happening and to make recommendations on how our safety culture might be improved.
	I have also acknowledged that there would be costs involved; I am mindful of that fact. I do not want a culture in which only the big bus operators could provide school bus services and from which the small operators would be excluded. Also, I do not want to see over-regulation resulting in unrealistic costs, given that school transport, including transport over longer distances, has to be paid for by local authorities. My proposals have taken all that into account, in order to ensure that they are practicable, workable and affordable. In that context, I hope that the Minister will take them in the spirit in which they have been put forward.
	In the Minister's reply to me regarding the Bill, he has made a number of statements to the effect that he believes that the existing law is adequate to deal with these issues. Obviously, he will not be surprised to find that I am not entirely persuaded by all his arguments. He refers to school buses already having to meet "minimum regulatory standards", and states:
	"Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations require all buses carrying children (under 16) to or from school to be fitted with a prescribed sign showing clearly to the front and rear."
	I have to say that the signs in school buses are hopelessly inadequate in poor lighting. They are temporary, as they are put up for just that purpose, and they are easy to miss, particularly in poor visibility. He goes on to say:
	"Buses carrying children are also permitted to display hazard warning lights when stopping to allow children to board or alight."
	I suggest that that would not have the impact that a dedicated flashing sign would. It could be removable by all means; I understand that buses might well be used for other purposes. I have no problem with the signs being removable, but they need to be prominent, clear and flashing if they are to have the necessary impact.
	The Minister also said that under the regulations, additional signs would be "permissible". Well, it is fine that they are permissible, but they are not required. That is the difference between the Minister and me. He says that the culture is in place, but the law does not enforce it or require it to be enforced. I would suggest that the difference between us is the belief that we need to step up the regulatory framework to the point of requiring a more prominent display of warning signs.
	It is true that there have been improvements in the requirement for seat-belts provisions, but they are not fully implemented across the board. It has been put to me that, ideally, in the longer run, three-point belts would be inherently safer. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents:
	"Although lap belts are not recommended for pregnant women, they are safe and suitable for other adult passengers. Three-point seat belts are safer, but wearing a lap belt is far better than wearing no seat belt at all."
	I know of people who have suffered severe injuries from lap belts, which would not have occurred if they had been wearing three-point belts. I thus suggest to the Minister that there is room for further discussion about having regulations or at least guidance that is stronger.
	Let me deal with the specific issue of the no-overtaking rule, which attracts very considerable support, certainly from the parents of schoolchildren. I notice that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South is in her place and I know that this measure is widely supported in the north-east of Scotland. It is believed to be an important contributor to road safety, yet it is resisted by the Department. The Department argues that on higher-speed roads, higher-speed braking might be required, which could be hazardous in itself, while drivers waiting from a side road might be less likely to let an approaching bus pull out in front of them and, indeed, might be encouraged to overtake dangerously when they think the bus is going to stop. That is the Department's main argument and I am not saying that those considerations are not relevant, but I am not entirely persuaded by them.
	The evidence I have seen suggests that where people know that something is the rule, they are likely to comply with it. The fact that it is advisory in the highway code seems to have absolutely no impact on behaviour at all. Perhaps because I have a direct interest—perhaps because I am, I hope, a careful and considerate road user and a parent of children of school age—I would certainly not consider overtaking a stationary bus that is picking up schoolchildren. I would be very mindful of the dangers and likelihood of children moving out into the road.
	I am, of course, in favour of a safety culture that encourages children to go to the back of the bus and to wait for the bus to move off. All those things will contribute to safety and they are all relevant, but I can say without fear of contradiction that there is widespread belief that a no-overtaking rule would save lives, and notwithstanding the reservations expressed by the Department, it would be a net contribution to safety rather than the other way round. That requires it to be an understood and accepted law. Other arguments have been deployed, but I hope that I have addressed the key ones and I hope that the Minister will take them in good faith as worthy of further reflection.

Michael Penning: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for generously allowing me to intervene in his Adjournment debate. If evidence is required and if evidence is also the basis of the Government's opposition, why have they not looked at countries where these measures have been in force for years and years, without producing the risks that the Government have adduced as evidence for not supporting a no-overtaking rule? Overtaking a school bus is a very serious offence in America, and there does not seem to have been any of these problems. The traffic stops because it has to; that is how it should be.

Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The Government take issue with that, but I certainly agree that there is such evidence. I would also say—I am conscious of my time—that Aberdeenshire and Moray councils cannot adopt that because of the law, but they have adopted a whole variety of safety measures. They have run an excellent campaign under the logo "Bus Stop", they have set up a website, and they have made changes to regulations requiring all buses to have seat belts by 2010 and prohibiting double-decker buses for school transport.
	I assure the House—this is directly relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)—there is a clear willingness and, indeed, enthusiasm in Scotland to be given an opportunity to test the proposals in my Bill. I am a Liberal Democrat, not a Scottish nationalist, and I am not interested in an argument between this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, but I am interested in establishing whether my proposals can be applied practically.
	The hon. Gentleman said that we had evidence from elsewhere. We could have evidence from the United Kingdom if the Government would consider, for example, allowing a no-overtaking rule to apply in Scotland—it would probably require an area that large to be effective. It could be policed and administered by the Scottish Executive, who are keen to introduce it, and by local authorities in Scotland, which are keen to be part of any test. There could be a very constructive relationship between the two Parliaments which would be widely welcomed, and I urge the Minister to give it serious consideration.
	A number of measures are being implemented by the local councils in the north-east of Scotland. Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen and Moray are to be congratulated on the action that they have taken. One example is the "See Me" system, consisting of a flashing light. We have dark evenings, which makes the light much more visible. A contact in Aberdeen suggested to me the introduction of warning signs that would indicate that children were passing the front or rear of the bus, rather like distance indicators. They could be fitted very cheaply, and it would be an example of the use of technology to deliver a safer environment for children travelling to and from school. It was described as a "bus-pedestrian safety control" by Alastair McGuire, who suggested it to me, and I think that the idea is worth exploring.
	I want to give the Minister time to give a proper reply. Let me end by saying that I want to engage with him, that I think the campaigners would like to engage with him, and that I appreciate his offering that opportunity. The debate has given me a chance to put some of the terms of my Bill on record, to make the speech that I could not make when I presented it, and to explain some of the parameters. I should be grateful if the Minister did not dismiss them out of hand. I am aware of his objections and I am sure that he will wish to rehearse them, but I hope he will acknowledge that my proposals have been given a great deal of consideration by, among others, bus users, local authorities, parents and others with an interest in bus safety. They believe that the implementation of those proposals would make a real contribution, and they are a little disappointed by the Department's resistance.
	The Department has a new ministerial team, which seems to me to present a fresh opportunity. Even if the Minister articulates the Department's reservations, which I expect him to do, I urge him to engage with us. I urge him to consider whether the Department can act, by means of adaptation or in some other way. I urge him to consider whether Scotland could test the proposals further, so that we could establish whether at least some of them could become law or be put into concrete effect. That would enable us to ensure that in future there are far fewer tragedies such as those that have blighted the lives of families in the north-east of Scotland and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom.
	I hope that the Minister will engage with my proposals in a constructive spirit; I am sure that he will.

Sadiq Khan: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on securing a debate on a subject that is so important to many children, families and schools. How he managed to secure a debate on this subject that immediately follows an estimates day debate on road safety is beyond me, but I congratulate him on managing to do so.
	The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a coalition in his constituency, but it is no coincidence that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) were present to hear his speech. The way in which he tempered his remarks, and the way in which he has led the campaign, is reflected in the fact that Members on both sides of the House were present to listen to his valuable speech.
	I was extremely sorry to hear about the recent deaths in Aberdeenshire of Alexander Milne, aged 12, and Robyn Oldham, aged 15, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The family and friends of young people who are killed, and those who survive but whose lives may be utterly changed by a tragic collision, have my deepest sympathy. Nothing I can say will bring them comfort, but I assure the House that we take the safety of children and of all road users very seriously. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my offer to meet him to discuss not only his private Member's Bill, but other issues. It was a genuine offer and I will listen with open ears to the points he makes at that meeting, just as I did to his short speech. I will not make a Second Reading speech or try to rebut the points that he made. Some of the key parts of his proposal are in place, while it is always worth reflecting on others proposals, especially if tragedies could be prevented in future.
	All buses used for school transport must meet minimum regulatory standards to ensure that the vehicles can operate safely to carry passengers on the public highway. The safety provisions for single and double-decker buses are equivalent. Buses carrying children to and from school already have to show retro-reflective "Children" pictogram signs; their minimum size is prescribed, but larger versions may be used. Secondary reflective signs, with markings or wording to indicate that children are on board or nearby, are also permitted—the right hon. Gentleman wants them to be obligatory—as is the use of the hazard warning lights when children are getting on or off.
	Since 1997, irrespective of the vehicle's age, all coaches and minibuses—though not public transport-type buses designed for urban use—have been required to have either lap seat belts or lap and diagonal seat belts fitted if they are used to carry groups of children aged between three and 15 on organised trips. That would include dedicated home-to-school transport. Since 2001, seat belts have also been required in all new buses, except those designed for urban use where standing passengers are carried.
	The responsibility of choosing the appropriate vehicle for a particular journey rests with those making the arrangements. Schools and local authorities can specify requirements above the minimum within their contracts with school transport providers. For example, they could specify in the contract that they will accept only vehicles fitted with lap and diagonal belts, or that signs should be above the minimum size. They can also specify the fitting and use of additional hazard lights or illuminated signs, and the removal of signs when buses are not being used as school buses. It is perfectly open to local authorities in Scotland to do just that.
	Stopping all traffic from passing a school bus if children are getting on or off—a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead—is of course a reserved matter; our traffic signs regulations, which would include the proposed stop signs on a school bus directed at other road users, apply in England, Scotland and Wales. National consistency in the use and meaning of traffic signs is extremely important to ensure good compliance, and this is particularly true with safety-critical signs. We have considered the suggestion of adopting the "all-stop" rule, and we do not think that it would be the safest option. Most children who travel to and from school by bus use ordinary public service buses, and would not benefit.
	One of our concerns is the possibility that children who were afforded such protection on school journeys might develop a false sense of security and take less care when getting off public service buses, or when crossing the road at other times. I promised the right hon. Gentleman that I would have open ears, however, and I will discuss the detail with him and listen to him at our meeting. He referred to a pilot, and we can discuss that when we meet. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead referred to the United States and to Canada, and we could look at the empirical evidence that exists in those countries. It is a mixed picture, but we can discuss it when we meet. There will not be a rebuttal; it will be a genuine discussion of whether there are possible solutions to the problems that the right hon. Gentleman identified.
	The Department for Transport does much to promote the safety of children. Among other things, we issue advice, guidance and teaching materials. The Highway Code gives advice to drivers and other road users emphasising that drivers need to take special care when passing buses and bus stops. Rule 209 specifically covers stationary school buses displaying a school bus sign. The code is not in itself a legal document, but drivers are expected to be aware of its advice and failure to observe this can be cited in any prosecution for offences such as careless driving or dangerous driving. It cannot just be parents, or those with experience of bereavement, who drive safely; it must be all of us, especially around children.
	I took my driving test so long ago that it did not have the theory element—I am not sure how long ago other hon. Members present took their tests—but I have been assured that the theory element that now exists in the 21st century stresses the need to be aware of, and allow for, all vulnerable road users. It is important that people getting off the bus take special care as well, especially because large vehicles can hide them from the view of passing drivers. We advise in the highway code that people of all ages need to be careful at all times when crossing the road, and particularly that they should wait until the bus has moved away. That advice is repeated in much of the teaching and publicity information that we distribute, including our free booklets aimed at children beginning to cross roads and travel independently.
	The first materials in our new, comprehensive set of road safety educational resources were issued this spring. They will cover all ages from four to 14, and will help teachers and local authorities to train and educate the children in their care. We have recently launched a new publicity campaign aimed at six to 11-year-olds, and we are planning a new teen road safety campaign for later this year. All these initiatives aim to instil good road-crossing behaviour and demonstrate the consequences of poor choices. We are currently disseminating the Kerbcraft child pedestrian training scheme, whose evaluation has shown that the scheme is highly effective in delivering a lasting improvement in children's road-crossing skills and understanding.
	I could have responded to the right hon. Gentleman's excellent speech by giving lots of reasons why we cannot do what he suggests, but I think it is far more important that I have put on record what currently takes place and will meet him to discuss with an open mind some of the matters he has raised. I welcome his comments, and he fairly said that it is not possible to change behaviour through legislation alone; we must look at all possible options and levers at our disposal in order to try to reduce deaths and injuries.
	As the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark), said in closing the estimates day debate on road safety, the statistics for injuries and deaths have decreased, but they are still not low enough. The fact that last year we had the second lowest number of deaths among young people since records began does not give me any comfort when I consider the facts of the two deaths to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. They are tragic, and they could have been prevented.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having introduced this debate, and to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead for having stayed to the end. I consider the issue of promoting school bus safety to be very important. I hope that I have demonstrated both that we are very active and have an open mind in this area.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned .